Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Add Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

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.

---

"Corot is a pivotal figure in landscape painting. His work simultaneously references the Neo-Classical tradition and anticipates the plein-air innovations of Impressionism. Of him Claude Monet exclaimed in 1897, "There is only one master here—Corot. We are nothing compared to him, nothing." His contributions to figure painting are hardly less important; Degas preferred his figures to his landscapes, and the classical figures of Picasso pay overt homage to Corot's influence."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
3. 63 interwikis, plus quote above, seem convincing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Another vital subject I learned about from The Gilded Age (TV series).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Yes to level 5, but never had the global recognition and status of a level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Aszx5000. Gizza (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Aszx5000. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 2 March 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 Road transport  4 and Watercraft  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.

---

We already list Rail transport  4 at level 3 and these two articles seem to be missing when they should cover all transport. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maritime transport  4 might be more appropriate than Watercraft  5 here. Kammerer55 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   As the nominator, I am also fine with Maritime transport being added. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support adding Road transport. Also, support adding Maritime transport instead of Watercraft, since the former is a more general topic and we already have Ship and many types of small boats in the list. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   Disclosure: Maritime transport is not yet at Level 5, not sure why. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support road and maritime for V4. As for watercraft, I note ship is V3. Wouldn't it be jarring to have a parent concept only at lower level? Maybe swap them through discussion at V3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the parent/child relationship is just one of the criteria for building the proper hierarchy here. For example, we have Earth  1 / Universe  2, or Africa  2 / Continent  3 where the more specialized topic is on higher level, because it is related to more knowledge topics. I imagine all Wikipedia topics as a brain with many interconnected articles, and here we have to choose a limited amount which would (with their most closely connected articles) together cover as much as possible. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Rail transport was much more instrumental than maritime and road, but nevertheless these two topics are still level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support road and maritime for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Hierarchy  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.

---

Pretty basic concept in numerous fields of science. This should be V4 if not higher (currently V5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous concept, could probably make VA3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Glaring omission, they are part of pratically all societies. The Blue Rider 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree Lorax (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. V5 is sufficient for this type of overview article. It's basically an extended dictionary definition as scoped. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Social stratification is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Czar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 20 February 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.

Swap Physical cosmology for Cosmology

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

---

We list Physical cosmology at level 3, but don't list Cosmology at level 4. This swap should make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currently Cosmology is mainly about historical cosmologies. Physical cosmology is more important topic. History of astronomy is at level 4, Cosmology is a level 5 topic for a reason. --Thi (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• You can't make a swap of a level 3 with a level 5. You should create a proposal for the removal of physical cosmology at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. The Blue Rider 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @The Blue Rider I made a proposal for the swap at level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 23 March 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 Road transport  4 and Watercraft  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.

---

We already list Rail transport  4 at level 3 and these two articles seem to be missing when they should cover all transport. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maritime transport  4 might be more appropriate than Watercraft  5 here. Kammerer55 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   As the nominator, I am also fine with Maritime transport being added. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support adding Road transport. Also, support adding Maritime transport instead of Watercraft, since the former is a more general topic and we already have Ship and many types of small boats in the list. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   Disclosure: Maritime transport is not yet at Level 5, not sure why. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support road and maritime for V4. As for watercraft, I note ship is V3. Wouldn't it be jarring to have a parent concept only at lower level? Maybe swap them through discussion at V3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the parent/child relationship is just one of the criteria for building the proper hierarchy here. For example, we have Earth  1 / Universe  2, or Africa  2 / Continent  3 where the more specialized topic is on higher level, because it is related to more knowledge topics. I imagine all Wikipedia topics as a brain with many interconnected articles, and here we have to choose a limited amount which would (with their most closely connected articles) together cover as much as possible. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Rail transport was much more instrumental than maritime and road, but nevertheless these two topics are still level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support road and maritime for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Hierarchy  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.

---

Pretty basic concept in numerous fields of science. This should be V4 if not higher (currently V5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous concept, could probably make VA3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Glaring omission, they are part of pratically all societies. The Blue Rider 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree Lorax (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. V5 is sufficient for this type of overview article. It's basically an extended dictionary definition as scoped. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Social stratification is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Czar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 20 February 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.

Swap Physical cosmology for Cosmology

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

---

We list Physical cosmology at level 3, but don't list Cosmology at level 4. This swap should make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currently Cosmology is mainly about historical cosmologies. Physical cosmology is more important topic. History of astronomy is at level 4, Cosmology is a level 5 topic for a reason. --Thi (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• You can't make a swap of a level 3 with a level 5. You should create a proposal for the removal of physical cosmology at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. The Blue Rider 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @The Blue Rider I made a proposal for the swap at level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 23 March 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 Road transport  4 and Watercraft  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.

---

We already list Rail transport  4 at level 3 and these two articles seem to be missing when they should cover all transport. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maritime transport  4 might be more appropriate than Watercraft  5 here. Kammerer55 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   As the nominator, I am also fine with Maritime transport being added. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support adding Road transport. Also, support adding Maritime transport instead of Watercraft, since the former is a more general topic and we already have Ship and many types of small boats in the list. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   Disclosure: Maritime transport is not yet at Level 5, not sure why. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support road and maritime for V4. As for watercraft, I note ship is V3. Wouldn't it be jarring to have a parent concept only at lower level? Maybe swap them through discussion at V3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the parent/child relationship is just one of the criteria for building the proper hierarchy here. For example, we have Earth  1 / Universe  2, or Africa  2 / Continent  3 where the more specialized topic is on higher level, because it is related to more knowledge topics. I imagine all Wikipedia topics as a brain with many interconnected articles, and here we have to choose a limited amount which would (with their most closely connected articles) together cover as much as possible. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Rail transport was much more instrumental than maritime and road, but nevertheless these two topics are still level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support road and maritime for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Hierarchy  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.

---

Pretty basic concept in numerous fields of science. This should be V4 if not higher (currently V5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous concept, could probably make VA3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Glaring omission, they are part of pratically all societies. The Blue Rider 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree Lorax (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. V5 is sufficient for this type of overview article. It's basically an extended dictionary definition as scoped. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Social stratification is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Czar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 20 February 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.

Remove Gwangju  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.

---

South Korean sixth-largest city doesn't look particularly remarkable - nothing in the article suggests it is culturally, historically or economically remarkable. The only start-class among seveal other vital-4 South Korean cities. The others which are C+, can stay, but this one seems worth considering for cutting.

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. The class of the article is not a good measurement of its vitality. The only historical importance I could trace to the city was the Gwangju Uprising, an important democratic movement in South Korea; doesn't seem enough for its inclusion as a VT4 though. The Blue Rider 10:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Doesn't look particularly vital to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Level 5 is more appropriate. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Weak support. It does seem a cut below the other South Korean and Japanese cities we list, I think, and 6 cities for South Korea is a little out of whack with other Asian countries. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Article quality is not a reason to remove an article, but agreed that Gwangju Uprising is a better fit for V4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
8. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Judging by the article's history section, it appears to have been an important city historically, and it seemingly continues to be one. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Though remote, this city is still vital at this level because it has been considered the cradle of democracy in South Korea.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   If that's the sole reason then better list the uprising and not the city. The Blue Rider 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Historically significant liberal bastion. Should WP:LEAD be expanded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   Article quality is not a reason to remove an article. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Moved to support. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

4. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:29, 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 Gig economy  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.

---

Gig economy got redirected after a month and a half in article space back in 2018. It redirected to Temporary work for over a year and a half and spent 4 years redirected to Gig worker before I recreated it on November 29, 2023. It is an important topic that we should highlight for improvement, which is what VA is all about. It may be VA4. Let's talk about it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too much of a recent phenomena. The Blue Rider 16:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
2. too recent Lorax (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose Respublik (talk) 18:18, 30 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 Tina Turner  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 proposed this a while back, but there wasn't widespread interested in that discussion. She is a key figure in music history as she was named the Queen of Rock and Roll. Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not VA4. I would support both Rihanna and Beyonce above her.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Eh, only passed nine months ago. Vileplume (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Not at V4 level. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

User:Interstellarity, can you link the archive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 74#Add Tina Turner The Blue Rider 12:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Interstellarity, try to use VA link template in headings (I've added it here) so we can quickly verify if this is V5 already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well that's an irrelevant rationale because there's no point in voting without looking at the appropriate listing, where one can easily spot that Turner is not listed, or if one has a good idea of the list already. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I’m sure the template is a new thing. I didn’t have to do that before, but I’ll do it next time. Interstellarity (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that templates should be mandatory. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 26 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: Remove Google  4, Add Alphabet Inc.  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.

---

Although Google on its own is important, I think listing the parent company is better choice to encompass the company’s products. Interstellarity (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose More than 99% of Alphabet Inc. revenue is derived from Google. We don't list Meta Platforms even at Level 5 even though Facebook  4 (Level 4) comprises a much smaller share of Meta revenue than Google does for Alphabet. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Few people remember the parent company. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose I google stuff way more than I alphabetize them and I alphabetized things this much before the company changed its name. To Google is a cultural thing. Alphabet is just an umbrella/shell company for the important brand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree with everyone above. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:55, 7 February 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 Industrialisation  4

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 recently proposed this to Level 5, and there was support for this to be included on Level 4 as well. --Makkool (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Major historical, economic and sociological concept shaping modern era. Similar and arguably slightly less crucial concept is V4 already: Urbanization  4 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, as Industrial Revolution is level 3 and the process of industrialisation is central to that. (sdsds - talk) 23:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🚰 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
5. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 20 February 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.

Move Dr. Seuss  4 to writers

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.

---

So Dr. Seuss is listed in two different places. On here, he is listed under cartoonists, but on the level 5 pages, he’s listed under writers. Since he’s often considered an extremely important figure in children’s literature, I think he should be put under writers, even if his illustrations are just as important.

Move

1. As nom. SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support: Regarding the cartoonist listing: “He should not be here," said the fish in the pot. "He should not be here when your mother is not.” (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support proposal in a house. Support proposal with a mouse. Support proposal in a can. Support proposal, yes I am. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep

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.

Proposal: Add a vital section link to each nomination

Almost every nom deals with judging what other topics sit in the same section/level with the proposed topic. It would be greatly helpful to create a nomination template that includes space for which vital section will contain the topic and the topic's current level (if V5 or not).

Support

1. czar 03:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Excellent idea. The Blue Rider 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support IF this can be automated. Otherwise it's an extra burden on the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   How is it going to be automated? For some subjects this might be possible. Sometimes, it is not clear what area a subject should be in. Of the 7 VAs that I am aware that I am the primary author of I would not have known how to categorize 2 of them if I had been involve in the nomination. I look at the subcategories that they are in and think I would have never thought to put them there even though I acknowledge they are correctly categorized. Note that our subcategories are much more refined than say WP:GA general categories in their nomination template. Keep in mind that in the GA nomination template it does not matter what the proper subgroup is. Here the comparisons that matter are at the subgroup level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger By automated I mean we need to have a friendly tool like WP:DYKNOM. One click solution, not some terrible "edit this, use this code, then edit this, transclude this, notify this" terrible mess like we used to have at DYKs until recently (and still have it for other stuff). TWINKLE and gadgets help, but this kind of stuff should be friendly and easy be default. So what I am saying - I agree with the idea, but we need to do it correctly from the start. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Piotrus, the DYK process which is embedded in the webpage is extremely smooth and aspirational. I don't mind something like the GAC nomination, however. You could tag an article talk page. Then the bot lists the topic with a link to open the discussion within 20 minutes. FAC, is a bit different where you tag the talk page with a template, then you have to hit a link to open the discussion and list the discussion yourself. The thing that makes this different from all of those is the potential for multiple similarly themed articles to be simultaneously nominated. DYK can handle mulitple article, which also makes it examplary. We have to think about RM or XFD processes with a bunch of pages. You might have multiple and multiple removes and some of them paired as swaps. It will no doubt be complicated to fully automate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger GAC system is fine too. Basically as long as the process requires just one page to be edited, that's good enough. (Pop up stuff is more friendly then having to deal with soruce code, but that's not that crucial for vital stuff, which is not visible to newbies at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

4. Any kind of note containing section-link(s) for the nominated articles would be helpful (though much more helpful for V5), since it would allow people to quickly compare these items with similar ones, so would make it easier to participate in discussions. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC), amended on 18:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - per nom. Great idea. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Good idea. Interstellarity (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am only opposing a one-off template. What is needed is an overhaul of the process and broader features in a templated procedure (see below). Since this was previously discussed at Main (VA3) and VA5, a closely related discussion here at VA4 that ignores those issues is not something I can support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   To me that seems like a completely different issue. The two templates discussed would be unrelated to each other, so I don't see that being at all a problem? J947 † ^edits 22:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   You should think bigger. Think of the WP:GAC nomination template. It includes a subject, it also creates a discussion space that becomes part of the {{Article history}}. It shows whether an article was passed or failed. You are obviously thinking of something much more trivial. If you want to try to solve this in a trivial manner, I guess you can ram it through.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Comment Why is this being discussed here. It seems it should either be discussed in the general Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles or Wikipedia talk:Vital articles-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
   • It seems there are too many talk pages for the project. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Note At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Category:Wikipedia_level-unknown_vital_articles on 24 October 2023, User:Piotrus initiated a discussion that the current process seems to have resulted in artifact categories for presumably wrongly closed discussions Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles. That discussion has covered whether this process should use a template that an article was added/removed with a link to relevant discussions and whether it be incorporated into the {{Article history}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Note When that discussion went nowhere, we opened Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Category:Wikipedia_level-unknown_vital_articles on 31 October 2023. We brought up the same topics and there was no response.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Furthermore in the 4 discussions that I posted regarding expanding VA, their was broad agreement that the process needs to be fixed. Lets have a discussion with how to incorporate templating to fix a broader set of procedural problems.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Note that the page used to have section headers like so. It was the same at VA5 for a while. I'd support that format being reintroduced to VA5, but not to VA4 which isn't as populated with discussions anymore. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
6. It would be also great to have more stable anchors for the headings in each level/section, so that you could link to them and not worry that they would change when the number of articles inside changes. --Kammerer55 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Domestic duck

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.

---

Pretty much all the common farm animals are listed at this level, but the domestic duck isn't even level 5. This surprised me as its just as iconic as a lot of the other farm animals we have at this level. We do already have the wild ancestor, the [[mallard] but this is also the case for a lot of other species at this level too. Overall it just seems like a bizarre omission.

Support

1. as nom. Maykii (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss Maykii (talk) 20:49, 25 March 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 BRICS  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.

---

Important economic union for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As noted by Noah Smith (writer), BRICS has implemented zero economic policies or initiatives. It's not comparable to the other international organizations we list at this level. Something like G7  5 – which, unlike BRICS, has actually spearheaded global economic initiatives – would be a more appropriate addition. feminist🚰 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per feminist. starship.paint (RUN) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
3. BRICS was a marketing slogan created by Jim O'Neill at Goldman Sachs. It has never represented any real political union or grouping. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

   It's definitely a real political group, just an informal one. The Blue Rider 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Cheerleading

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 athletic activity.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Very common. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think it is so popular outside the U.S. Also, the nominator did not mention which article should be removed instead, or which section this should be added to. Place Clichy (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. Removals: Brandy, Gin, Liqueur, Rum, Sake, Tequila, Vodka and Whisky. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Place Clichy. The Blue Rider 16:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Largely a US phenomenon; not at V4 level. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 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.

Proposal: Organize the Geography list by region rather than by category

I am proposing that we organize the geography list by region rather than by category. I think in this way it is easier to create a hierarchy of where certain places are rather than comparing countries, subdivisions, and cities. Since this is a big change, I am proposing this on the talk page. I provided an example below on how we can organize the cities. Please let me know what you think. Pinging @J947: who mentioned something to me on my talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• North America
  • United States
    • California
      • Los Angeles

Discussion

• My initial reaction is that I don't think this is a very good idea, since the level 5 geography sections are broken out into separate Cities and Countries and subdivisions sublists. Having the Level 4 and 5 lists structured the same way is generally the best way to go. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think organising VA5 into continent subpages would be a big improvement. Right now there is in places at VA5 a very severe imbalance in representation of countries and putting all the articles related to each country together is a way to fix that. It's probably best to make the change first at VA4 as a starter to see if it works (over a smaller group of articles than at VA5). J947 † ^edits 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well I don't think this should just be done at level 4. If we are going to completely change how geography is organized, then I think it would have to be done at Level 4 and 5 together. So I think we need to be considering how level 5 geography would have to be restructured too. Maybe someone can do a draft of what Level 4 geography would look like just so we could see it and then decide. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  In ~3 weeks or so I can start making a draft. Ping me if I haven't by then. J947 † ^edits 07:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that different levels should ideally have the same structure, but I think it's better to think what's best for level 4 first, and then extend the same structure to level 5 eventually if needed. Kammerer55 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• I support this idea because it makes it a lot easier to see what precisely we cover from each country. For example, currently for Venezuela we list Venezuela, three cities (Caracas, Maracaibo, and Valencia), Angel Falls, and Lake Maracaibo – but not Margarita Island. You can spot that a lot easier if they're all listed together. There are problems where a geographical feature does not neatly fit into one country, but I think reorganisation is a great improvement. J947 † ^edits 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Even if we listed countries, country subdivisions, and cities together, natural physical geographical features like lakes, rivers, islands, etc should not be listed under specific countries. Too many of them are not exclusive to a single country and it would just make things more complicated. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving Fantasy  4 to Society and social sciences/Mass media

In refence to this discussion on adding Fantasy literature  5 to V5 under Arts/Literature, how would think about moving the pre-existing entry Fantasy  4 to Society and social sciences/Mass media, next to Western? Also, what has been the practice regarding genres here? Which are to be listed in Arts/Literature and which under Society and social sciences/Mass media? There are currently several discussions open about different genres in Level/5 talk pages, and it would be good to achieve consensus before those proposals start being passed and added to V5. Could there be another place to list popular culture genres like Western, Fantasy, Post-apocalypse etc. than Mass media? --Makkool (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Move

Oppose Move

Discussion

1. It would be helpful if you could provide a complete breakdown of the current mess, i.e. where various genre entries are. I am not sure if we can ever find a perfect solution, given one-dimensionality of the vital system, but unless we see the full picture, it's hard to comment. (I did try to move one or two minor things at V5, ex. brining steampunk to cyberpunk...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

1. I might do a proper thorough suggestion later on, when I find the time. It's not high in priority right now. --Makkool (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos

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

---

This is an article that should more properly be named the "Marcos dictatorship" (which is a redirect) but is not named that due to media coverage consensus issues and sensitivities. However, it is a significant period in Philippine history on par with the Philippine Revolution, or at least the Japanese Occupation of the Philippines during World War II. I am new to Vital Articles but by my estimate, that feels like a level 4, but maybe it should be at a different level? For now, I'm proposing its addition here. - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that there Human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship and Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family (a redirect from Marcos Plunder) probably also deserve VA status, although perhaps that's level 5. - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos is level 4 so potential child articles are most likely level 5 vitality. This proposal seems more reasonable, I might support if in the right venue. The Blue Rider 02:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi:, hi! Just making sure if you want to make this into a proposal at level 5 or not! Cheers. The Blue Rider 20:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider:, Hi! Oh, yes please! Shall I just go there and add it? Or is there some sort of automated process? - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:44, 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.

Add one of Old World porcupine or Crested porcupine

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 Dawid2009 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Old World porcupine. --Thi (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Old World porcupine. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Porcupine is already level 4. Are there any reasons to include Old World Porcupines that don't also apply to New World Porcupines? I'm not a huge fan of paraphyletic clades, but I think it's the best and most inclusive option here. Marchantiophyta 18:10, 03 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Certainly an interesting topic, but not vital. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 13:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Marchantiophyta. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Eventually we could reconsider Hystrix (mammal) Dawid2009 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 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: remove Franz Beckenbauer, add Bundesliga

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.

---

Football league with too enduring significance against player who is rather forgotten for people who are not quite deeply interested in football. Now, when we have lower level 5 it is more important to among 10 000 articles make completness of Big Five leagues which are broad topics (cover clubs, everyday life etc.) than specific players from all ppositions. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support. As someone who is not that much into sports, I've heard of Bundesliga; hence I think it is pretty well known for association football. No opinion on removal of the swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Beckenbauer is one of the top 10 greatest in history. Not a swap that makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Beckenbauer is consistently listed on official FIFA dream teams and best XIs of all time. Considering that we list 11 male football players at Level 4 and Beckenbauer is usually mentioned as part of the best teams of all time (consisting of 11 players), he deserves a spot. Furthermore, just because an organization is broad and has notable members, it doesn't give it an automatic pass for inclusion on VA4. For example, we don't include UEFA  5 at VA4 even though they include all the European clubs, nations, and tournaments. And even more than that, I would rather see Serie A  5 get added before Bundesliga  5. I know you probably proposed the swap to exchange German for German but teams in Serie A have achieved much more success historically than Bundesliga teams. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk) 02:22, 22 February 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.

Proposal: New rule that an article must be listed at a lower level before being nominated for inclusion at a higher level

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

---

There are currently 2 nominations for Level 4 inclusion for articles that are not currently listed at Level 5. Our general practice has been that articles must be listed at lower levels first before being considered for inclusion at higher levels. I propose that we make a formal rule that nominations can only be made at higher levels for articles that are already listed at the level immediately below. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support I'd also support articles that are removed from level 4 automatically being added to level 5 Lorax (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

   This is the status quo (as it should be), to be clear. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Support (with amendment below). Makes sense that higher-level articles should require a bit more scrutiny for inclusion, and if a missing article is really that important, then it should easily pass the lower stages, so it should not be much more work. Also, strongly support Lorax's suggestion, since the levels are not independent and are hierarchical in nature. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

   Actually, it seems that level 5 is still a bit chaotic for now: the talk-page is too long, rules are not stable, people are still officially allowed to modify the list without discussion etc., so maybe we should still allow direct Level 4 addition nominations (especially for obvious misses, like some important concepts). So, I suggest to keep a formal rule for Levels 1-3 that the nomination should start at Level 4 first and then go up step-by-step, but for Level 4 let's allow direct nominations (skipping Level 5), but require a formal disclosure that an article is not yet at Level 5 (and maybe provide an option to move discussion to Level 5, if people disagree with the nomination at Level 4). --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

4. Support, wondered if this would be too bureaucratic or inflexible (i.e. what if some major thing/event happened), but then realized that Level 4 should not be for things that are too current, so the need to do Level 5 first is a good idea. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support I would like to see this rule enforced. However, I imagine most violators will site WP:IAR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   I think if we had a proper VA landing page that listed the guidelines for adding/removing VAs, than these discussions would have more lasting substance. At the moment, the closest thing we have to a landing page (WikiProject Vital Articles) is only focused on advice for how to bring VA to GA/FA? It should he all about the guidelines and policies for adding/removing VAs? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

6. Support Would ensure some stability. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Has this been a problem? I'm not convinced a rule is necessary. Exempting current noms is a good example of what we'd be missing. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

I feel that the rule, if accepted, should not apply retroactively to current nominations. starship.paint (RUN) 15:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:42, 30 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.

Remove Respect (song)  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.

---

It is an important song, sure, but I have doubts it is at the same level as other works listed under modern musical works: (# Heartbreak Hotel, # Johnny B. Goode, # Kind of Blue, # Like a Rolling Stone, # Respect (song), # Rhapsody in Blue, # Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, # Thriller (Michael Jackson album)). Thriller became the best-selling album of all time; "Johnny B. Goode" is considered one of the most recognizable songs in the history of popular music... this is the kind of defining vital statement that I feel Respect is missing. Now, Kind of Blue and Heartbreak Hotel also strike me as somewhat arbitrary additions, missing similar claims of fame. Feel free to tell me I am wrong, suggest swaps and further fixes. I'll ping an editor I know is interested in modern music and whom I hope to get interested in the vital project: @Keneckert:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure how cross-cultural this song got. Earlier song Johnny B. Goode has 34 interwikis, Respect's same year release Like a Rolling Stone has 39 interwikis, Respect has just 20. starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per my previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support, per nom. For Level 4 it has to have had a greater role in shaping society/culture, which it didn't (albeit a great song). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support fits best at Level 5. Gizza (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. My vote isn't really going to make a difference at this point but it is literally 1st in the Rolling Stone's highly respected 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list. If it was 20th or 10th or even 5th on this list, I would support a Remove but the fact that it ended up first on an aggregated list of the best 500 songs of all time as determined by 250 notable artists, writers, and industry professionals is enough to make it VA4-worthy in my opinion. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:03, 15 March 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 Everyday life

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.

---

V5 concept that heads its own page at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life. Frankly, I think this should be V3 but let's start here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 06:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. It's a bit weird that a topic giving name to a main section starting from level 2 has its article only at level 5 (unlike all other level 2 sections). Probably, would support it for Level 3 as well (and maybe even for level 2), but would like to make sure that the article indeed covers (or attempts to cover) as many topics as the name would suggest. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It is a technical term used as a headline in a wikiproject's page, but is it vital topic in encylopedia? Which printed encyclopedias include it? What you must say about it which is not covered by other articles? --Thi (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I too am not sure how encyclopedic a topic it really is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger It's important enough that sociology of everyday life is a field [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083247 (that I very much need to stub at least, sigh). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Don't see that this topic—as it is currently framed—is really an encyclopedic standalone topic? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Feels more like a dictionary topic than an encyclopedic topic tbh. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:14, 22 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.

Swap: Remove Convolvulaceae  5, add Solanaceae  4

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

---

They’re both plant families in the order Solanales, but the Solanaceae is far and away more important of the two. Among the more notable members are the Potato  3, Tomato  4, Bell pepper  4, Chili pepper  4, Eggplant  4, and Tobacco  4 (Bonus points for hosting Tobacco mosaic virus  4). The cultural/economic/historical significance of this family is hard to overstate.

The Convolvulaceae contains the Sweet potato  4, a number of ornamentals and some interesting weeds. The sweet potato is a crop of moderate importance and other morning glories have aesthetic and ethnobotanical value, but in terms of human and ecological significance this is a relatively minor family and would rank below others that haven’t made the list (e.g. Rutaceae, Amaranthaceae, Brassicaceae  4).

Support

1. As nominator --User:Marchantiophyta 2:42, 8 December 2023
2. Sweet potato is a staple food (as the #7 most-produced staple food, I would say it has high importance), but when compared to the sum of the Solanaceae members cited, it doesn't hold up. starship.paint (RUN) 03:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

   Good point, “moderate” is definitely underselling the sweet potato (the implications of its distribution alone would probably earn it a spot on the list). The edible plant section is full of “one-hit wonders” not represented at the family level, so it'll be in good company there. Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Support. Makes sense. Presume that Convolvulaceae will be swapped to Level 5 with Solanaceae. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, Convolvulaceae is worth including in the project but is definitely more of a level 5 subject. Marchantiophyta (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

4. Makes sense, potatoes and tomatoes are very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:16, 18 February 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 Turkic migration

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.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per QuicoleJR. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• @RekishiEJ: Why is this topic vital? I need a reason to support a proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:25, 1 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 various health science subjects

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences is under quota 1482/1500. I nominated a few dozen subjects at VA5 and these all passed at Level 5 unanimously. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Health was woefully under quota before these changes (953/1200) and remains so. I am not sure which of these can help Level 4 to get closer to quota, but here the are

Many of these are better suited for the medical technology subsection in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Technology#Medical_technology than Biology and health sciences. Gizza (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

First aid kit

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose first aid is introduced at Level 4 and I don't think we need both added at the same level. Gizza (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
2. DaGizza's oppose makes sense. The Blue Rider 17:36, 21 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.

Bandage

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Classic element of medicine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Everyone knows what this is. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Easy support. The Blue Rider 17:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
5. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:08, 22 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.

Sling (medicine)

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I instead support adding orthopedic surgery to cover the treatment of fractures and other medical conditions/injuries relating to the musculoskeletal system. A sling is just one small part of the treatment. Gizza (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per above. The Blue Rider 17:36, 21 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.

Crutch

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Not just related to medicine, common prop associated with old people for millennia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. Prefer adding walking stick first as a more general tool used to aid people in walking. Also gets more pageviews. Gizza (talk) 02:49, 10 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.

Tourniquet

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not well-known or important enough for VA4 in my opinion. Not nearly as important as most of the other proposals in this section. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJR. The Blue Rider 17:29, 21 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.

Stretcher

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Would support if there is room (quota) after other stuff here passes (or not). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 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.

Syringe

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I'd support this one instead of hypodermic needle; one of those is enough for V4 I think and this one often encompasses the other, visually at least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Another easy support. The Blue Rider 17:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
5. support Lorax (talk) 05:57, 30 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.

Hypodermic needle

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose to balance my support above - to overlapping otherwise for V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Agree with Piotrus. The Blue Rider 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
3. don't think we need this and syringe Lorax (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per Piotrus Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:23, 1 March 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.

Stethoscope

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Classic propr of modern doctors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support Lorax (talk) 05:59, 30 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.

Ventilator

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per DaGizza. The Blue Rider 17:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per DaGizza below Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

This is already partially covered by pulmonology. Honestly, I would support adding missing branches of medicine like Rheumatology and Intensive care medicine before specific equipment, especially since technology is over quota. Gizza (talk) 00:15, 8 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.

White coat

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. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I can't see white coat being any more vital than e.g. medical gloves or surgical mask. Maybe the broader Personal protective equipment is a better choice. Then again, epidemic and pandemic are both only Level 5 currently and one of them should probably be upgraded first. Gizza (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per DaGizza Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:23, 1 March 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 Hobby  4

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.

---

Pretty basic element of Leisure  4. We list a lot of hobbies at V4. If we can have dozens of specific board games (Monopoly, Chess, Tetris, etc.) surely we have room for this concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:40, 7 March 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 Russian invasion of Ukraine

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 major war of the last twenty years, most important conflict since Iraqi war, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now. I think this war is very important to our modern era, but for level 4, I tend to have more concerns about recentism. I think the best indicator for its level 4 vitality would be if it has an enduring effect on global history and society, and I'm not sure we can assess that while it's still an ongoing active conflict, especially right now when it's at a stalemate. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. -WP:TOOSOON-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

I think it's on par with Syrian civil war, which is also level 5 for now. The invasion itself was quite recent though the broader Russo-Ukrainian War has been going for a longer time and may be the better choice to add. Gizza (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@DaGizza I think the comparison to Syrian civil war is not good, since that one had much less international involvement, as well as was much less significant both for the Russia or geopolitically. However, you make a fair point whether the RUW article might not be better - but I think in the end that the invasion proper is what pushed this from a Low-intensity conflict (not a V5 concept hmmm) into a vital-4 concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 15 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 Operation Condor  4

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 surprised when I went through our history section to see a relative lack of topics about South America in the list, with only 4 listed in the late modern period section. I thought the most glaring omission from this was Operation Condor  4, the campaign of political repression, state terrorism and regime change that shook the entire continent for the best part of a decade. Tens of thousands of people were killed or forcibly disappeared, and hundreds of thousands more imprisoned, during this period. It was undertaken by right-wing military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, with the support (both covert and overt) of the United States. It still has ramifications today, with countless people that still don't know where their family members are, while left-wing and democratic governments are still attempting to undo the institutional holdovers of the dictatorships. Speak to almost anyone from South America today and they could probably tell you in detail how they were personally affected by Operation Condor. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per well-written argument by nominator. We could also consider adding Falklands War, the wars of indepence, Colombia–Peru War, Cenepa War, Latin American debt crisis, War of the Confederation (we don't even list Peru-Bolivian Confederation at level 5). The Blue Rider 12:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. I will reserve judgement on the suggestions made by The Blue Rider. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Iostn (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza (talk) 04:50, 4 March 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 Thessaloniki

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.

---

Portugal  4 and Greece  4 have comparable populations, and Ancient Greece  3 and the Greek language  3 are V3, yet since the addition of Porto  4, Portugal had more V4 cities than Greece. The addition of Thessaloniki will balance the two countries out citywise. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Second biggest city in Greece, fair adittion. The Blue Rider 20:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Haven't examined this thoroughly but Thessaloniki seems a bit below Porto to me. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Thessaloniki is significantly less populous than Porto, going by both municipal and metro population. It is also significantly less visited: as a point of comparison, Thessaloniki Airport has roughly half the passenger count of Porto Airport. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Battle of Marathon

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.

---

Battle of Marathon was pivotal in shaping not only ancient Greek history but also the course of Western civilization. Their victory over the Persians secured Athenian independence but also allowed for the development of democracy and the Greek cultural and intelectual movement. Moreover, it changed the course of the Greco-Persian Wars  4, with an ultimate win of the Greeks. The batlle influenced militarilly, culturally and ideologically Western civilization for centuries.

Also fun fact, the word Marathon  4 comes from this battle when Pheidippides  5 ran all the way from the Marathon, Greece to Athens to warn the Athenians that the Persians were heading towards them. The Blue Rider 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. One of the most consequential battles in world history. The Blue Rider 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Yes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support good pickup. Gizza (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
6. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 20 February 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 Tampa, Florida

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.

---

Aside from the Inland Empire, which is probably only V5, the Tampa Bay Area is the last U.S. metro area of over 3 million to be unrepresented at V4. Florida itself is V4 with one city, and while Metro NYC makes up 65% of New York State’s population, and Chicagoland makes up 68% of Illinois’ population, Metro Miami only makes up 28% of Florida’s population. Speaking of Florida, Cape Coral and Sarasota could be V5 when Florida is somewhat underrepresented compared to the rest of the country. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I think a second Floridian city would be beneficial to the list since it is the third most populous state. I support Tampa, neutral on Jacksonville. I know Florida has four big cities, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville. I feel like Jacksonville isn’t that important, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. Interstellarity (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Travel to/from Sarasota–Bradenton International Airport is very difficult, with a lot of the most competitive options being on small airlines or Tampa International Airport. So I view the Sarasota as part of the Greater Tampa region. (E.g. try getting SRQ to Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport or Miami International Airport)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Decided to land on this side. It's big. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Florida should have more than one city at V4. It can either be Tampa or Orlando. I won't let my slight preference for Orlando hold up my general support for listing a second Floridian city. feminist🩸 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
6. I mentioned this in the Calgary thread below but I believe that every city listed as Beta-status or higher on the GaWC classification should be included at V4 or higher since this typically indicates heavy regional importance and usually cultural or historical significance. Out of the 151 such cities in the world that satisfy that criteria, there are only 3 that we do not list: George Town, Cayman Islands (financial importance probably dominates every other metric), Nicosia, Cyprus, and Tampa, Florida. Out of these three, Tampa, Florida is probably the biggest no-brainer (though I would also like to see at least Nicosia on here as well). The GaWC classification is probably the closest we'll come to an objective hierarchy of the notability of cities; it might be best if we align our list as much as possible with theirs. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Meh, besides being a fairly large city, demographic wise, not seeing what makes this city vital. The Blue Rider 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Not mostly world famous, which is what V4 should be, IMHO. Few people outside US would have heard about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

   Most people are ignorant, so well-knownness is not a good metric, especially when we list over 400 cities at this level. Vileplume (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

3. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Population isn't irrelevant, and yet the better measure of vitality is whether people who don't live there have a need or desire to know about it, perhaps because they might visit. On that measure, Orlando would clearly be more vital. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 10:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

I don't know, Orlando feels more significant than Tampa as a city despite its somewhat lower population. Probably due to tourism. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Moved to support. feminist🩸 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

1. It's a tossup between Orlando and Tampa for me. Tampa is the larger metro, but Orlando is more well-known. Having lived in Central Florida for a few years (between the two no less), I didn't really get a sense that one was more important on a regional level than the other. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• What makes Tampa more vital than Jacksonville, Florida? The Blue Rider 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nice catch, I was considering proposing J-ville first. Similar levels of importance, metropolitan areas are typically a better metric for vital cities than city proper. However, it would probably be better to list Jacksonville since it’s the eleventh largest city proper and the largest city by area in the lower 48, compared to Tampa having the 17th largest metro. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The Jacksonville metro area is significantly smaller than either Tampa or Orlando. The only reason why Jax has a high municipal population is because its boundaries include its suburbs. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm usually unconvinced by population-centric arguments for city inclusion. Do you think there are other reasons - cultural, economic, historical, etc. - that Tampa is VT4? (Jacksonville too if you can explain) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  It, San Jose, and Portland are the only metropolitan areas with a GDP of over 200 billion USD to not be listed at level 4. In the present day, those three economies are certainly far more vital than that of New Orleans. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Globalization and World Cities Research Network ranking worth thinking about here. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Unsure (so unsure I'm not sure enough to put my name down as neutral) at the moment, because while it is very big by population (and population strongly correlates with economic importance and other forms of vitality), its metro area is somewhat decentralised, its influence is modern, it doesn't feel as if it's on the same level as the other U.S. cities listed, and I'm a little loath to add another U.S. city in general. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Consider Tampa Bay area as an alternative, or even Tampa Bay. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 22:14, 8 March 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 Confederate States of America  5 for Canadian Confederation  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.

---

Having both Confederate States of America and American Civil War at this level seems redundant to me. Our listings for North America under the late modern period are also heavily U.S.-biased. (I say this as someone studying for a PhD in U.S. history). Currently, there are only two articles (Mexican Revolution and Mexican War of Independence) which are solely non-U.S. I think it would be good if we had at least one Canadian event listed (War of 1812 notwithstanding). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support removal. V5 is sufficient. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4. The CSA only existed for 4 years. Weak support for the Canadian Confederation. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support removal. Neutral on Canadian Confederation as it seems to be on a similar level of vitality as the Federation of Australia, which not only shaped the modern nation of Australia but also New Zealand who decided not to join. Gizza (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

   Canada has a higher population than the latter two combined. Vileplume (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

   The English speaking population of Canada is about the same as Australia and New Zealand combined. If the number of English speakers is not a consideration, then there are countries with larger populations which have zero direct coverage in modern history, like Thailand and Tanzania. Adding Canadian Confederation along with War of 1812 which is already added, would give Canada similar depth of coverage to much more highly populated Brazil which has Empire of Brazil  4 and Paraguayan War  4, and more coverage than e.g. highly populated Egypt which only has Arab-Israeli conflict as an article partially dealing with the country's modern history. Australia also doesn't have an equivalent to the War of 1812 listed currently in the Late Modern Period. Apart from generic articles which impact every country, the only article somewhat related to Australia is Pacific War, but Canada has an equivalent in Battle of the Atlantic. Gizza (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

6. Support removal. Per Gizza. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Support removal. Per Gizza.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition. Don't know much about Canadian history but the confederation doesn't seem that vital. Nevertheless if the nominator would provide a rationale for the inclusion instead of just an appeal for better representation of North America, I might support it. The Blue Rider 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

   Confederation is the Canadian equivalent of American Revolution or Mexican War of Independence. It was the process by which Canada became an independent country. I think it would be the most logical Canadian entry. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Liu Xiaobo  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.

---

Liu Xiaobo was an outspoken critic of the Chinese government. He wrote about Chinese society and culture with a focus on democracy and human rights; he played a major role in writing Charter 08  5. A Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo's dedication to democracy and freedom of expression, exemplifies his impact on global conversations about fundamental freedoms. He was jailed multiple times by Chinese authorities, namely after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre for his role in support students who had taken part of the protests. The Blue Rider 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. A lot of China modern history events are missing as well, will do a batch proposal at VT5 when I have the time. The Blue Rider 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

   Charter 77 the Czechoslovakian repercussor of Charter 08 is also missing. The Blue Rider 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Yes. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He was a cause celebre, sure, but his actual impact on Chinese affairs in practice seems too limited to put him in the same tier as Maximilien Robespierre or Aung San. He was certainly world famous for a time, but I'm skeptical he will be historically considered as important in the long term as other VA4 figures like those I just mentioned. Totalibe (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 01:45, 29 March 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 Kirkuk

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.

---

Next Iraqi city I would add, and largest Kurdish-plurality city in the country. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Box  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.

---

Seems like a V4 topic. Suggested by User:QuicoleJR at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM#Add_Cardboard_box (which is currently at 2:0 and can use more input :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Boxes are a basic, ubiquitous concept. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The history of the box in particular is not very nuanced; its modern-day usage is not something an encyclopaedia would be particularly in need of covering; and the broader Container  4 is already listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose A level 5 topic. --Thi (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Per J947. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 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 Almanac  5 and Gazetteer  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.

---

These are important tools of reference especially since one is updated every year and the other is a directory. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have voted to remove G at WP:VA5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose both. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🚰 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Don't feel strongly about A.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. User:Interstellarity Gazetteer is up for removal at VT5, here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society#Arts. The Blue Rider 04:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

   Oh, I didn’t notice that. Thanks for telling me. Interstellarity (talk) 15:55, 3 February 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 Public domain

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.

---

Important key concept alongside Copyright. Interstellarity (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Agreed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, as the concept provides fundamental support to the topic of Intellectual property. (sdsds - talk) 23:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Subordinate concept; V5 is sufficient. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Czar. feminist🩸 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

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.

Swap Tallinn  4 with Chișinău  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.

---

Larger city in a significantly more populous country. Vileplume (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Tallinn is an older city with more historical importance. The Blue Rider 01:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 07:21, 5 February 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 Marvel Cinematic Universe

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.

---

Based on some of the comments here, I feel like the MCU as a whole should move up to a level 4 vital article. It is the biggest film franchise at the box office and has played a large role in pop culture and society since it began in 2008. This would also open up for the possibility for a film from within it to potentially have a chance to be a level 5 article in the future.

Support

1. I support as nominator. -- ZooBlazer 05:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely. A paradigm shift in the commercialization of film IP and was the pioneer in the now ubiquitous idea of cinematic shared universes. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
4. The effect and reach of the MCU is greater than a single film as it spans film, television, web and live entertainment similar to Star Wars, which is level 4 and has three films and a music article at level 5. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. More important than a bunch of stuff we list that are not aging well. We need a balance between "high culture" and "popculture". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
6. This is a big thing in pop culture, and it pioneered the concept of shared universes for works of fiction. It should definitely be VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Already covered by The Walt Disney Company  4, also too recentist. The Blue Rider 12:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered by other articles. Too recent pop culture phenomenon. --Thi (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Fictional universe should be sufficient at level 4. (sdsds - talk) 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
4. per above-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose as trivial. Toga films or Soviet realism are probably more important to the history of cinema than Marvel stuff. Place Clichy (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
6. per above Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:54, 29 February 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.

Remove Brandy, Gin, Liqueur, Rum, Sake, Tequila, Vodka and Whisky

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 Everyday life quota is 473/450. The main article Liquor should provide an overview of the history of distilled spirits.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Other more general topics like energy drink (currently level 5) should have priority over specific types of liquor. (sdsds - talk) 22:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support. Happy with removing all of these or keeping one or two of the most important ones (in my opinion, vodka and whisky) and removing the rest. Aurangzebra (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Liquer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support 23 items over quota is just plain egregious, especially when liquor is already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchantiophyta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Support liqueur and sake only. Gizza (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Support With Distillation  4 also being vital all of them are not needed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think this is what needs to be cut to bring everyday life to quota pbp 13:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose everything except Brandy and Sake. Very well-known and widely drank alcoholic drinks, some of them such as vodka and tequila are even part of the identity of countries (Russia and Mexico) and serves as a way to exercise power internationally. Rum is historically important as it's popular associated with pirates and was a highly traded good. The Blue Rider 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose everything except Brandy and Liquer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose I may be more open if these were discussed separately.  Carlwev  09:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Probably other items should be removed from this section before whisky is. Separate discussions may be opened though. Place Clichy (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose all except liqueur and sake. I also disagree with a quota of only 450 for everyday life. I remember philosophy and religion's quota being reduced without discussion and then people proposal removals using the rationale "over quota". I haven't watched the list closely in recent times but wouldn't be surprised if something similar has happened with everyday life. 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• Further support for removal comes from Distillation  4 also being level 4, in addition to Liquor  4. These two sufficiently cover the topic for level 4. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:47, 12 February 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.

Remove Acapulco  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.

---

Acapulco is mainly known as one of Mexico's oldest beach resorts. However, due to rampant crime, its status as an international beach resort has been completely taken over by Cancún  5. Since we decided two months ago that Cancún does not deserve VA4 status, Acapulco shouldn't remain on this list either.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
5. The size of the metro area alone (853k) is not sufficient for V4. Cancún has already overtaken it. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 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 United States Virgin Islands  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.

---

They are the only inhabited territory of the US we do not list at this level. Open to adding Virgin Islands  5 if the community thinks it is a better choice. Interstellarity (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not significant enough historically, demographically, technologically or any other measure. Should stay at VT5, along side with British Virgin Islands  5. The Blue Rider 00:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Per TBR. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Calgary  4 and Ottawa  4

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.

---

Canada is horrendously overrepresented, and these two cities are significantly smaller than many American cities we don't list. Four cities should probably be enough. Vileplume (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Calgary only; oppose removal of Ottawa. Suggest relisting them separately. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose both. Edmonton  5 is almost as big as Calgary, and these two cities combined would be comparable to Denver  4 or Baltimore  4. I feel that Alberta is significant enough for one of its cities to be included here. As for Ottawa, I would rather remove Belfast  4 first. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

   Eh, Belfast’s history used to be V5, and so did Dublin’s, but otherwise, I agree that the island of Ireland is overrepresented. Vileplume (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose both. For the Calgary case: I believe that every city listed as Beta-status or higher on the GaWC classification should be included at V4 or higher. And this has been the case so far with the exception of George Town, Cayman Islands (probably included on that list for its outsized financial impact), Nicosia, Cyprus, and Tampa, Florida. Maybe we should also discuss adding these cities but Calgary at least takes the tiebreaker for having more than 4x the population of these cities. For Ottawa: we should be including capitals of V3 countries, especially when they have a million+ people. The comparisons you included below are a bit unfair since, as feminist mentioned, Naypyidaw was very recently chosen to be the capital and construction on the city only finished in 2012. A better comparison would be Yangon  4, the former capital, which is VA4. If Canada suddenly decided to move their capital to a newly constructed city tomorrow, I don't think anyone would vote to put it in VA4. As for Canberra, it is also a fairly new city with only about a century of history behind it. Ottawa is also classified as a Gamma city in terms of global importance whereas Canberra is a full tier behind. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose the removal of Ottawa, the capital city of the third-largest anglophone country, from a list catered to english-language wikipedia. Less strongly oppose the removal of Calgary, Canada's third-largest city. Its inclusion is not disproportionate compared with, say, the UK (twice as many cities with 60% larger population), the Netherlands (60% as many cities with 40% the population), Ukraine (20% more cities with 25% fewer people). Additionally, this is a list of vitality to the english-language wikipedia project, not of earthly vitality, and I'm fairly confident that Calgary is at least as vital as, say, the thirtieth largest Indian city to the average anglophone wikipedia user even if India has a higher population. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

   City proper population is not a preferable measure for the vitality of North American cities. By metro area, Calgary is only the fifth largest city. Vileplume (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hmm. These two cities have around 1.5M metro population. The largest US metros we don't list are Tampa, Florida  5 (3.3M); Orlando, Florida  5 (2.8M); Portland, Oregon  5 (2.5M); and Sacramento, California  5 (2.4M). Yeah, both Canadian cities really are quite a bit smaller, so maybe the US is underrepresented? I think Florida deserves more than just Miami (but perhaps not both Tampa and Orlando), and I would support the addition of Portland, but I don't think Sacramento belongs here. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  The U.S. makes up around 6.5% of the global urban population, so I think it’s somewhat adequately represented. But this is the English Wikipedia, and it does make up a quarter of the global GDP, so we could always add more, but I’d add more Chinese cities over American, as it only has slightly more representation while having 16-20% of the global population, urban population, and GDP. Vileplume (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Chinese cities tend to be much bigger than cities in other countries on average (this heavily depends on how you define "city" though). In general, in most countries including China, agglomeration effects mean that larger cities/metro areas tend to punch way above their weight than proportional to smaller cities. A district in one of the four "tier 1" cities of China (see Chinese city tier system) is probably more significant than a run-off-the-mill picked at random Tier 2/3 "city", due to agglomeration effects. Also remember that most places in China tend to be administered as part of a larger "city", when in contrast something like New Rochelle, New York, Evanston, Illinois, Manhattan Beach, California, etc. would be regarded as a separate "city" for administration purposes in the US. Hence "cities" are often larger than the metropolitan areas of their urban core in China, whereas the opposite is true in the US. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, in general, I think larger countries should have fewer cities per capita on this list. That is because it is easier for their citizens to move (freedom of movement) and cluster into larger (hence more economically productive) cities. So, a 1.5M (metro) population city in Canada is more significant to Canada than a 1.5M population city in the US is to the US. Now, the exact implementation differs from country to country (e.g. Paris is much more dominant in France than any German city is to Germany) but I'd say this principle holds true in general. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  As to this point it's really just how VA (and VA4 in particular) goes. We list relatively obscure figures, like 6 photographers, 4 urban planners, and 2 cellists while much more famous (and, ignoring balance reasons, inarguably more vital) writers, politicians, and scientists are excluded. There are 2 speed skaters on the list, leagues below association footballers we don't list. The same principle applies to the geography section, if on a less drastic scale. I wrote this not for any ideological reason but simply because think it's worth acknowledging that this is how stuff works. IMO, it's not so much what you say (but that's certainly part of the rationale behind this status quo). J947 ‡ ^edits 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• I know this is the capital of a V3 country, but we don’t list Naypyidaw or Canberra. Vileplume (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  They're not really comparable in significance? Naypyidaw is very recent for a capital (established in 2005) and smaller than Ottawa; and Canberra is significantly smaller than Ottawa. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 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 IOS  5 for IPhone  4

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.

---

iPhones are a revolutionary device that changed human lives. I find it weird that we list the operating system they run on is above the hardware that it runs on. Interstellarity (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
3. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Seems obvious. I'm using an iPhone to write this support. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
5. We should list more specific computer hardware. Vileplume (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 True crime  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.

---

There was again some support for this to be included in V4 as well, after a successful vote at V5. True crime is currently experiencing a boom in popularity, but as a genre of journalism / non-fiction literature, it has fascinated people in the West for some while in the form of magazines, books, tv shows and recently podcasts.

Support

1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Would only support Helter Skelter at V5 if this proposal passes. Vileplume (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Often questionable form of entertainment. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

   @Thi: What do you mean? Just because something is morally questionable does not mean it isn't vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

   It is fine in level 5. --Thi (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Not a genra big enough to be at V4. Many others I'd add before. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 2 March 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 McGill University

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 there are only two non-US institutions represented from the Americas, one of which is the University of Toronto. It feels fairly intuitive that Toronto and McGill would share the same vitality level, they've generally been the two Canadian universities with the greatest international profiles academically and culturally/historically. How you define any of these things is fairly nebulous but I struggle to think of one that would place Toronto at Level 4 and McGill at Level 5. They are both, for example, the only non-US universities in the Association of American Universities and McGill is the sole Canadian member of the Global University Leaders Forum whose chair is, apparently, McGill's principal. Culturally, McGill also held unique significance in the development of university athletics (the article elaborates on its various "firsts") and relatedly its ties to the Ivy League. IRN-Dumas (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom

Oppose

1. We should remove universities from the US instead of adding McGill. If any continent is underrepresented with universities, it's Asia. feminist🩸 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per feminist. We should add non-Western universities. starship.paint (RUN) 01:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not much known outside its area. --Thi (talk) 19:44, 23 March 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 Dodoma  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.

---

Capital and third largest city of a very large country (Tanzania  3). Vileplume (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's just another fairly new capital moved from the country's economic center. Canberra  5, another fairly recent capital, is much more important on a global scale than Dodoma, and we rightly don't list it at this level. feminist🩸 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

   Tanzania most certainly should have a second city, so if not Dodoma, then should it be Mwanza or Arusha? Vileplume (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

   Tanzania most certainly should have a second city I disagree. Per Demographics of Tanzania, Approximately 70 percent of the population is rural, which means not that many people live in cities in Tanzania relative to the country's overall population. Dar es Salaam  4 is the primate city of Tanzania and its other cities are just not very large or significant. feminist🩸 (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

2. per feminist. I think the proportionality argument only holds up in Level 5 where we have more than enough space to list the 'obvious' cities but in Level 4, where space is more scarce, we should only be listing cities with a significant amount of importance. Dodoma does not meet that criteria. Aurangzebra (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per feminist and Aurangzebra. starship.paint (RUN) 01:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Places that nobody has heard about might occasionally be at V5, but not V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I think Arusha  5 has a stronger case of being Tanzania's second city. It is a tourist hub, being a base for going to the Serengeti National Park and Mount Kilimanjaro, is the capital of the East African Community and is where the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights sits. Looking at Level 5, Pemba Island, the country's second largest island after Zanzibar  4 and with a population of 400,000, should probably be listed. Gizza (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

When the EAF forms, I’ll strong support Arusha, but for now, I’m neutral. Vileplume (talk) 14:57, 29 February 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.