Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Remove Sublimation (phase transition)

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 don't list the opposite which is Deposition (phase transition) so it would probably make sense to remove at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2024
2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support, no need to make this proposal linger. It is a basic phenomenon though so if there's room someday, maybe promote along with Deposition. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (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 Multimedia

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 encompasses all forms of media we use for communication. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Strong support, relevant to Tech, Society, and the Arts; no need for this proposal to linger. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:24, 11 February 2025 (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 Crime prevention

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

---

A subtopic of crime, of top interest today in all societies. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Criminal law  4, Criminology  4, Court  4, Prison  4, Police  3, and Security  4 and a few more adjacent ones are all already vital at this level, most of crime prevention is already included. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Kevinishere15. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2025 (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 Smoking cessation  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.

---

More of a VA5 topic. Too much overlap with Health effects of tobacco  4, which is already contained in Smoking  3 and Tobacco  4.

Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather remove Health effects of tobacco instead. Smoking cessation is clearly something that many people are doing. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2. This article and the article noted by Interstellarity are both vital at this level, in my view. Both are strong articles. Jusdafax (talk) 01:22, 11 December 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.

Round quotas at Lv 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.

---

Hi everyone, I don't normally participate at Lv 4, but we currently have a proposal open at Lv 5 to round all of our page quotas to multiples of 100 or more:

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#General quota proposal: larger denominations (feel free to participate even if you normally don't work on Lv 5).

I noticed that at Lv 4, you have two sections with 450 slots each (Everyday Life and Religion/Philosophy), but otherwise your quotas are already denominated by 100s. I just thought I would go ahead & propose adjusting those two to round 100s also. I have no specific input on the best way to do it.

One reason is purely bureaucratic: we could unify the guidelines for our quotas across all 5 levels. However, if you check out the Lv 5 proposal, I give a few arguments for why we probably shouldn't be over-tuning the quotas.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I see no reason to expect that the number of vital articles in a topic should naturally fall on 100 article boundaries. All your arguments for round numbers are on the Lv 5 page boil down to "make it easier to administer", but the point of the vital articles series isn't to be easy to administer, it is to identify the most vital articles. I'll also mention that there are 5 times as many Lv 5 slots as there are Lv 4, so if the step size on Lv 5 is 100, then I'd expect the step size on Lv 4 to be 20. Lorax (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

   Not expecting to change your mind, but to clarify, the bulleted-list on the other page does list administrative advantages, which are still advantages. The process needs to run well for the list to evolve.

   However, my #1 reason by far is actually in the paragraph below that. Essentially, the more specific the quotas become, the less they're functionally quotas and the more they become a box-checking exercise, and one that's misleading at that (minimizing variances makes the list look more finished than it really is). By agreeing quotas should match and change in larger chunks, we have to justify them on actual reasoning, not just tweak them just to match current size or proposal momentum.

   To your point about simply multiplying by 5 between levels, we've already had discussions about comparing proportions between levels, and the consensus was it didn't make sense to keep them constant. You also have to account for a larger variance (in a statistical sense) in the larger Lv 5 list. Every section is a moving target, so even if a Lv 5 section isn't a multiple of 500 at the moment, such a multiple could still be in the ballpark. Besides, Lv 4 has already settled on almost all even 100s anyways; this only requires shifting 50 or 100 slots at most to realize. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

2. Don't think this would be helpful per Lorax. Furthermore, the VA4 list is much much more evolved than the VA5 list and hence we have a better idea of what numbers work for each section. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Just to update on the Lv5 vote, we've now affirmed round 100s for quotas and reallocations. I understand the tighter margins here mean it may need more granularity, or Lv4 may not have many quota issues in general. I'll leave this open though in case there's interest in harmonizing the rules. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (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 Anglosphere  5 and Arab world  4

Two major topics with 37 and 87 interwikis respectively.

Support

1. As nom Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Support Arab World per below Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support Arab World, oppose Anglosphere. Western world, currently level 5, could be a suitable replacement for the latter, though. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Support both. I'd be fine if either Anglosphere or Western world is listed which is proposed below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstellarity (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support both, stronger support for Arab World, see below for thoughts on Anglosphere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Anglosphere, that article is about a subset of English-speaking countries with close diplomatic ties and was popularized in Neoconservative discourse in the early 2000s; English-speaking world is the article that potentially deserves to be on the vital list (interwiki links may not be making the distinction between Anglosphere and English-speaking world that English Wikipedia does). Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Anglosphere-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Reiterating opposition of Anglosphere here just in case. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

On Anglosphere vs. English-speaking world, while I get the first article currently talks about mostly the Five Eyes countries, I'm not sure they really need separate articles. Like they literally have the same map, just with different shading. Long-run, it probably just makes sense to merge the articles (and we should include one at Lv4), with details about the core, ethnically Anglo countries as a subchapter. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Western world

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure, pretty important to modern history. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 16:39, 27 February 2025 (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 Human settlement

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

---

Also known as a populated place, it's a place that humans live in. I would support if nominated to level 3 and possibly replace City at level 2.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong support. I've discussed this as part of a broad reorganization of geography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong support, if Lv4 lists Suburb  4 and Industrial park  4, something this general clearly makes sense. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. It's odd that city is at level 2, town and village both at level 4, but human settlement is level 5. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2025 (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.

Swap University of Paris  5 with Sorbonne University  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.

---

Sorbonne University is the current iteration of this educational institution. University of Paris merged with Sorbonne College before, and then in 2018 Paris-Sorbonne and Université Pierre et Marie Curie merged once more to form this university.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. Also, the Sorbonne 'brand' is what is VA4 in my opinion anyways. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Per Aurangzebra, and in French, the broader article is fr:Sorbonne Université. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2025 (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.

Move Riemannian manifold  4 to level 4 from level 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.

---

One of the most fundamental and important objects of modern geometry. 1,002 wikilinks last I checked.

There are many pairs of articles about a branch of math and its object of study, such as Riemannian geometry  4 and Riemannian manifold  4, Group theory  4 and Group (mathematics)  4, Graph theory  4 and Graph (discrete mathematics)  4, and Ring theory  4 and Ring (mathematics)  4. Of these, Riemannian manifold is uniquely discordant with the rating of its companion, which is level 4.

Disclosure: I have a lot of edits on Riemannian manifold.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, if algebraic rings and ring theory are both already Lv 4, and so is Riemannian geometry, the precedent seems pretty clear. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. --ZergTwo (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2025 (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 Adenosine triphosphate  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.

---

You know how the Mitochondrion  4 is the power house of the cell? Adenosine triphosphate or ATP is produced in the Mitochondrion and "is used throughout the cell as a source of chemical energy." I believe this chemical is critically important to biology, and as a biological creature think it should be at a higher level of vital article.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, strong support for the topic itself, but I don't know what the precedent for listing individual compounds is at Lv4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

    Comment: Just to note a few examples: Water  2, Gold  3, DNA  3, Salt  3, RNA  3, Ethanol  4, Carbon  3, etc.. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

4. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Strong support, one of/the most important chemicals for life. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
6. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:26, 6 January 2025 (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 Album  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 don't really think I need to explain what an album is or give much of a detailed rationale as to why I think it should here. We list Song  4 at this level (at the moment at least), and we list several individual albums at this level to begin with. I don't see why the concept of an album shouldn't be here as well.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 04:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. Interstellarity (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Compact disc  5 is as important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

   Optical disc  4 is at this level, so I'm not sure what your argument here is. λ NegativeMP1 05:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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 MrBeast

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 is currently 17 Web entertainers and internet personalities at Level 5 vital so it makes sense to have at least one level 4 vital article. MrBeast has the most subscribed YouTube channel and also the third-most-followed creator on TikTok. He has a number of related articles: Team Trees, Team Seas, MrBeast Burger, MrBeast Lab, Feastables, Finger on the App, Lunchly, Karl Jacobs, $456,000 Squid Game in Real Life!, 50 YouTubers Fight for $1,000,000, Beast Games, Beast Games lawsuit. In the last two years the page got more page views than other living Level 4 vital articles such as Tom Hanks, Rafael Nadal and Quentin Tarantino.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I usually am a lot more strict about influencer proposals because I think being an influencer is a very fickle business and we could be victim to recency bias. But Mr. Beast averages over 200 million views a video [1]. For comparison, the most watched Super Bowl ever had 123 million views. He has branched into other businesses and mainstream media/TV with much success (the Amazon Prime show Beast Games was the #1 show on Prime in over 50 countries in its debut [2]). It would take a VA4-level controversy for him to fall off the map completely (he has been the subject of many controversies in the last few months but his views numbers have stayed more or less unchanged). Youtube is such an insulated ecosystem that there's still a chance some of you haven't heard of him but I think his article speaks for itself. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for a very specific reason. Before deciding, I compared the pageviews for PewDiePie  5 and MrBeast between January 11 2015 and January 11 2025. During this time, BrBeast has gotten 21,842,134 views and PewDiePie 21,091,502 views. There was a switch where MrBeast became more popular in 2019, but over the past decade the number of page views between these two is remarkably close. I'd want to wait another 5 or 10 years on MrBeast to ensure his page isnt' going to go the route of PewDiePie. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too recent. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose, I don't normally participate at Lv 4 or on People proposals. But I'm skeptical of listing influencers even at Lv5, whatever their celebrity may be; I would think Lv4 has even less room to spare. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose, too recent. His high view count is less impressive when compared to corporate and kid/toy channels. PewDiePie  5 also previously had unprecedented mainstream attention for an online celebrity. I'd like to wait a few years. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose like everyone else due to being too recent. Better to wait to see if long-term vitality is eventually achieved or not. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This is a weird case. As Aurangzebra said, I would normally be more hesitant about this because of fears of recency bias. However, he is quite possibly the most successful internet celebrity / influencer ever. Even if he fell off in popularity, I feel that he has cemented himself in internet history, and it's hard for me to imagine someone ever reaching similar levels of fame as him in his field. It's also hard to imagine that he, and the impact he's left, will ever really fade into obscurity. But only about a decade or so worth of activity... I don't know. I'm voting neutral for now. λ NegativeMP1 01:57, 12 January 2025 (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 Sovereign state  4

Per the lede, "A sovereign state is a state that has the supreme sovereignty or ultimate authority over a territory." A Sovereign state is the most technically correct term for what we colloquially call a Country  2. Surprisingly, the word country is extremely ambiguous in usage, but at level 2. The concept of a Nation state  5 is really niche and mostly theoretical, and it is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for a Sovereign state  4, however it is level 4 while sovereign state is level 5. Breaking down the concept of nation state, you have a combination of the terms Nation  4, "a type of social organization where a collective identity, a national identity, has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory or society" and State (polity)  3 "a political entity that regulates society and the population within a territory." The nation state is the theoretical situation where all people in a state are also of the same nation, which is not something that is reflected in reality, states have minority populations that have unique national identities. For example, the United States is a Federation  4 comprised of several Federated states , includes multiple distinct Native American nations, and is used as an example of what a Nation state is not. I believe Sovereign state is more vital a concept, as it is what we see raising armies and enforcing laws across the world. To add it, I have two options to propose.

Add Sovereign state

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap Sovereign state with Nation state

1. Failing straight add, as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Level 4 seems to have gotten more additions than removals lately, and Sovereign state  4 gets much more pageviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Swap it? Yes, 100%. Interstellarity (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Swap sounds good, and in this case, I think Laukku's point about pageviews is a strong argument. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support swap. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:50, 19 January 2025 (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 Late modern period

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

---

I think we should at least consider this article to be listed since we already have Modern era at level 2. It usually refers to the period from 1800 to the present. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  22:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Sure, simple matter of precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
7. Support; seems fair to at least be level 4 given that other eras are level 2. AkiyamaKana (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
8. Should probably be at least VA3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Looking the list. The way it now is - more a conversation for lev2, it looks odd, like a mistake or oversight has occurred. At level 2 there is both Modern Era, and Early Modern Period, however Late Modern Period only appears at level 5. I have not looked at the archives in detail, but I do remember the topic coming up and being voting on, and that there were article, renaming and reorganizing happening that we had to take into account. My first instinct is Modern Era is the parent and possibly higher article and Early and Late are both sub-articles/child articles of the parent article and possibly slightly lower. How strange to have the main article and Early at lev2, but Late only at level 5, seems wrong unless there is a specific reason I'm missing. Any ideas?  Carlwev  22:01, 19 January 2025 (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.

Move Fireplace?

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

---

I think Fireplace and Chimney should be grouped together. So I think fireplace should be moved to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Heating_and_cooling and thus Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Technology#Infrastructure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. forgot to sign as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, saw this floated at Lv5. Initially, I thought fireplace might be better in architecture, but skimming the article persuaded me. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2025 (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 Craniate

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 distinction between Craniate  5 and Vertebrate  4 is obsolete.

Support

1. As nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makes sense, even the article says as much. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Obsolete, on the lower end of vitality even for VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Proposal signature

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (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 Crop

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.

---

Could see this article go to level 3, but it definitely goes in level 4.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Essential part of Agriculture  2 and a major part of Food  2. I think it should be Level 3, but Level 4 needs to be first. AkiyamaKana (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
4. How is this not already much higher? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:43, 14 February 2025 (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.

Move Fire

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.

---

Fire  2 is listed under technology but since fire occurs in nature and the article isn't dominated by technological aspects, it would make more sense to list it under chemistry. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This has always bugged me, and I guess the fact it's listed across levels is why we've never moved it before. Absolutely agree it belongs in Chemistry, maybe even under exothermic or oxidation reaction. The Control of fire by early humans  4 article OTOH makes sense under Tech, though I don't see a problem with it in History where it is now either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I've now raised this at Lv2. We'll see what everyone says there, and if they're OK with moving it, we'll propagate it down through the other levels. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Support moving Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (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 Washer (hardware)  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.

---

A similar deal as with the recently demoted Gasket  5, this has a more supporting role compared to the more fundamental Fastener  4 and its other subtopics. VA4 and its Technology section are overquota, and this would in all likelihood be among the first listings to go.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (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 Cardinal direction from Tech -> Geography

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

---

We've discussed this on the main talk-page, but I thought I should propose it here since it's Lv4. We currently list Cardinal direction  4 as a subitem of Navigation  3 in Tech. And they're definitely related.

As more of an agreed convention than a unique solution to a physical problem though, I think Geography concepts is a better location. Under this article on Lv5, we also list North  5 et al., which make even less sense under Tech to me. Assuming this passes, I'll move the children on Lv5 too according to WP:BRD; if someone reverts, we can have that discussion then.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. I would support removing N/E/S/W from VA5, incidentally. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

   I think I'd oppose.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

3. Per nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Thanks for nominating this. I've been a part of this discussion and support it 100%. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Reasonable suggestion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Proposal signature

Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2025 (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 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)  5, or swap with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy  4 franchise

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 two things that trouble me about this being on here:

1. I have trouble believing that, if any radio series are VA4-worthy, this is the one and only
2. I have trouble believing that the radio series is more notable than the entire franchise, especially since other commentators have wanted VA3 and VA4 articles to be broad in nature

FWIW, The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_media_series there is also a VA5 discussion about this franchise _pbp 16:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Support removal

1. _pbp 16:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Support swap

1. _pbp 16:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
2. The entire franchise is more important, level 4 is over quota, and my impression is that the books are more famous than the radio series. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. If any radio series is to be depicted as Level 4, I think it should be a show from pre-television radio when it was a much more important medium.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
5. The franchise is larger than one aspect of it. GauchoDude (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I nominated the franchise on another post for removal because it was 5 and this was 4. I think that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) is extremely notable as a radio series, and it is the only article in that section at level 4. It is an icon of that medium in my opinion, so would make sense as level 4 in that category. I think there are probably other radio series that could be nominated to level 4 to represent the category more thoroughly though. The franchise, movies, and books are much less iconic overall then the radio series is as a radio series. I say this a huge fan of the books, and as someone who has never actually listened to the radio series completely. If others disagree though, that's fine. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

There were 32 episodes of this series. Do we consider this more notable than something like Grand Ole Opry that's had thousands? _pbp 01:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy is certainly influential to literature and pop culture, and it would easily be among the most influential radio series if we are listing radio series. I'm not for or against other series being added. When it comes to influence, I don't know if quantity is the metric to measure by. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:36, 10 February 2025 (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.

Move Abortion

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.

---

Abortion  3 is listed on Society>Issues but I would prefer to list it on Medical procedures. The fact that it is controversial shouldn't be treated as more important than what it is. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll definitely second this, and I'm not sure it needs a full vote, but you may want to move the notice to the Lv3 talk page. If nobody opposes the idea there after a few days, you can probably move it boldly on all levels. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Maybe replace this with abortion debate in the Issues section, while keeping abortion in Medical procedures. Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I also support this move. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2025 (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.

Move Conspiracy theory -> Sociology

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 came up in a related proposal at Lv5, but we apparently list Conspiracy theory  4 as an auxiliary topic of History. I'd think it belongs much more under Sociology though. Although they can be personal theories around historical events, the topic is really a form of Meaning-making in society (and I think the article content speaks to that). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. Conspiracy theories are a means of explaining historical and current events, though often with dubious accuracy. I'm also never really sure what is and isn't sociology. I could also honestly see conspiracy theories classified as we would classify myths and legends. _pbp 17:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right, and I thought about the myth aspect too. In the end though, even if they explain current events, my thinking is what characterizes them is the "conspiracy" bit. The very foundation is a fundamentally different notion of causality from what I'm guessing most historians accept. In a way, it's sort of similar to the difference between Creationism  5 and the theory of Evolution  2. Since the central mechanism is a belief that certain social groups can wield unnatural power, it's arguably a sociological way of thinking. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Per nom. Things can be historical but are also contemporary. We don't list movies, music, and art under history. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2025 (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 John C. Calhoun  5

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

---

the previous nomination by @NegativeMP1:

"I feel like we list too many American politicians at this level. Counting all from Modern, Post-classical, plus the stray Ulysses S. Grant 4 (who is listed as a general), I count about 28, the most from any modern country (or the modern form of a country). No other section in the Modern leaders area has nearly as much as the United States. Not even Russia, China, Mexico, India, and so on and so forth. And while I get why the leading global power of the past century has a lot of weight given towards it, there is still undoubtedly an American bias and surely there's a few people here that can go. And out of everyone listed here, I think Calhoun is the easiest cut.

I don't really see any major claims to vitality (at this level) in Calhoun's article (which is FA, so I'll assume it covers nearly everything about his legacy) other than he was significant to the civil war era and a lot of places were named after him. The former of which is something that we have no shortage of coverage of at V4 and higher with the American Civil War 4 itself, Abraham Lincoln 3, Robert E. Lee 4, Henry Clay 4 and Ulysses S. Grant 4. All of these (minus Clay, who can probably be cut) in my opinion are the only super important articles to coverage of the American civil war that make sense to list here (even if a bit Ameri-centric). Calhoun simply is not as important or on the same level as all of the other ones we list here. Also, is he more important to global history (or even American history) than the entirety of the Central Intelligence Agency 5, which is responsible for orchestrating the vast majority of what the United States did during the Cold War 3? Or Henry Kissinger 5, who left a global legacy so distraught that he's widely considered a war criminal? Or countless other politicians that have left a wide impact without necessarily being president? Hell, is he more important than Joe Biden 5?

V4 has only 10,000 slots, of which 2,000 are given to people. When determining what the 2,000 most vital people to human history are, that judgement should be based on who has left a global impact and changed the course of history (or at least left a VERY significant impact on their country's history). Calhoun did not do either of those things. His contributions to global history are little to none, and his impact on American history is probably not anything that isn't already well covered enough by other V4 articles about the Civil War, and coverage of the Civil War at this level will probably not be impacted by demoting Calhoun to V5. Other American politicians that I think could be cut for similar reasons (lack of global impact, Ameri-centric bias, etc.) include Henry Clay 4, J. Edgar Hoover 4, and John Marshall 4, but those are discussions for a different time."

Per @User:Grnrchst from a previous nomination in 2023:

"I am completely lost as to why either of these men are considered VT4. They certainly held a lot of positions in the US government and were in proximity to a number of important people, but I don't understand what about them is independently vital enough for this level."

Per @Interstellarity from a previous nomination in 2022:

"Not a president, probably not vital"

Calhoun has been nominated for removal multiple times, and multiple times it has not succeeded. The fact there have been multiple nominations to remove this article to me makes it look like there is a feeling it isn't particularly vital. The project seems to have participants come and go, and there doesn't ever seem to be more then a few dozen active editors, so a pass/fail is really just a poll of the active editors in the moment. The 2022 nomination was closed as 0 to 1, and I'm not sure if that is because the nom changed their vote, if voting etiquette has changed, or if they forgot to include it. Generally, I think it would be assumed that a nom would support their proposal, so that looks weird to me. Anyway, I agree with these three arguments against including Calhoun at level 4. I think we include far to many biographies in the project in general, and don't think this particular individual is one of the 10,000 most vital people of all time, much less topics. I particularly support/agree with the arguments made by NegativeMP1, and would have voted support if I was active for the other proposals as well.

I also believe that based on this projects rules, "There is currently no hard limit to how soon a failed proposal can be retried, and articles can occasionally see major swings in coverage or notability. However, editors are strongly discouraged from knowingly repeating a recent proposal (active within the past 6 months is a good rule-of-thumb). If someone does happen to repeat a proposal, assume good faith in the absence of disruptive behavior and include a link to the previous discussion from the archives." Furthermore, "Wikipedia normally allows any editor to propose changes on any subject at any time. A moratorium, which limits discussion of a particular proposal, runs counter to that and must never be applied hastily or without good reason. To limit the frequency of a debate that has become demonstrably repetitious and unproductive is a common reason to impose a moratorium (see the perennial proposals list), but sometimes a moratorium may be applied – or participants in a discussion may seek to apply one – when the subject has not yet reached that threshold. Doing so is inappropriate and is almost certainly stonewalling." The way the previous proposal was closed prematurely, and calling the nomination disruptive, looked out of place in how proposals are normally handled here and in my opinion was not Civil. I think that blocking new proposals 15 months (almost 3 times the suggested threshold by the project) is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, which is described as "disruptive behavior" in the explanatory essay.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. I want to fully clarify that the initial editor that archived my proposal did apologize for calling it disruptive here, and I fully understand why he would find having the same conversation over and over again to be frustrating. And I probably would not have made the proposal had I knew that it was proposed so many times in the past to try and avoid repetition. But nevertheless, I still feel like Calhoun just does not belong at this level, and my initial proposal (documented in its entirety through this nomination) explains itself. Sure, he's important to American history... but practically every other president that we list across all levels, including 5, are likely more important than him. The only president of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis  5, is likely more important than him. Hell, the entirety of the Central Intelligence Agency  5, which is V5, is likely more important. Without good reason, global history should take forefront before American history based on this projects scaled, unless there is a lack of representation on a certain country or a specific period of that country's history. Unfortunately for Calhoun, we list 27 other American politicians at this level, including most of the important people from the Civil War. His influence, while existing, is not as significant as other big Civil War-era politicians, and I find it extremely hard to believe that the United States (and especially the Civil War era) needs any more representation than it already does at this level. Infact, it probably needs less. Calhoun being at V5 is completely fine and a good fit. λ NegativeMP1 05:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Agree with the thoughtful, laid-out rationale as to why this has resurfaced again as, to GeogSage's point, as editors will come and go from this project. As one of the people who has recently joined, I did not participate in any of the previous conversations so this is new for me. I agree with the worldly view of NegativeMP1 in that we may have not only overindexed on American politicians at level 4 in the scope of this project, but likely that others at Level 5 could be better qualified I believe is enough to say we probably don't have Calhoun in the right spot. GauchoDude (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support Minor figure in world history. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
5. I think that (a) we slightly overrepresent U.S. politicians, especially pre-20th-century ones, (b) Calhoun is one of the weakest on the list – not solely because he didn't ever serve as president! – and (c) there is a big error bar on the era representation of U.S. politicians and removing Calhoun would not compromise it. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

   @J947: Could you explain what you mean by "big error bar" a little further? _pbp 14:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

   I don't see ensuring perfect era balance as being important and will tolerate a lot of leeway in terms of under/overrepresentation of one particular era. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

6. Support. I do agree with pbp below that Calhoun was extremely significant to American history, much more than everyone else seems to be giving him credit for. However, I must admit that we do over-index on American politicians. He wouldn't be my first choice from that section to remove but it's still a fine choice. I don't think I'd support any more cuts past this (unless there was a reasonable swap). Aurangzebra (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Obviously. The same argument that Calhoun is redundant to Clay and Lincoln can be used to say that Biden is redundant to Donald Trump  4 and Barack Obama  4 or that Kissinger and the CIA are redundant to Richard Nixon  4, Lyndon B. Johnson  4, John F. Kennedy  4, Dwight D. Eisenhower  4, J. Edgar Hoover  4, Cold War  3 and Vietnam War  4. If we cut Calhoun and then Clay, we'll have hardly anybody at all from the eighty-five years from 1815 to 1900: just Lincoln, Jackson, Polk, Sitting Bull and two Civil War Generals (and, yes, Grant is correctly classified as general; his presidency was a laughingstock and he does not gain VA4 vitality from it). Since everybody's quoting previous removals, here's what I said.

   For starters, if we remove these two gentlemen, the period of American history from 1815 to 1861, a very important period in the development of the United States, would be barely represented at all. Secondly, despite the fact that they never were President, they are still among the most influential people of the 1815-61 period in American history, and probably among the 25-30 most influential politicians in all of American history. Both got their start as part of the "War Hawks" coalition that marched the U.S. into the War of 1812. Both were named to the top five Senators all time.

   The period of 1815 to 1861 was dominated by a sectional struggle between Northern abolitionists and the Southern slave power, with Calhoun being the principal spokesman for the Southern Slave Power. He provided the philosophical framework for nullification and secession, and started the Nullification Crisis.

   If we're ascertaining that a VA4 American must have foreign policy influence (I disagree, but let's play with that assertion anyway), in addition to the American Civil War, Calhoun was involved in the War of 1812, the Texas Revolution, the Mexican War, and several Indian Wars. Every single one of those wars was fought to dispossess Indians or Mexicans and more or less give their land to Calhoun's buddies in the Southern Slave Power.

   And obviously oppose GeogSage's reopening this after I closed it. Doing this over and over IS absurd. Maybe not disruptive, but absurd. If Calhoun is removed, what's to stop me or somebody else renominating him for addition on July 4, 2026? _pbp 14:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. As I've stated, I think the number of people we include on the list is way to high, the number of American's we have on the list is way to high, the number of Westerners disproportionate, and the inclusions skewed towards recent people (past 10 years, 100 years, and 1,000 years in particular). I wouldn't care if we moved all the U.S. presidents from 4 to 5, I think we should only have a few thousand total biographies on the project, not 15,000. I think level 4 should probably look more like level 3 (a few less), and that level 3 should have closer to 10 inclusions. That said, Calhoun is less vital then everyone you listed in my opinion, especially from an international standpoint. The War of 1812 is barely a footnote in British History, much less others outside of the Anglosphere. Outside of North America few people discuss the Mexican American war or Indian Wars in any great detail. There are countless people/topics more vital then Calhoun we don't have at level 5, like John Quincy Adams  5 and James Monroe  5, two U.S. presidents that Calhoun served under, or Jefferson Davis  5 the president of the Confederate States of America  5, which is barely something the world cares about outside of U.S. borders.

   In my opinion, you closing that last proposal, as well as the language you used, was absurd, disruptive, and uncivil. I believe your edit summary and closing statement contained both "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and was "belittling a fellow editor". The fact you want me to respect your closing is ridiculous, if you were actually sorry for the way you spoke in it, you would have reopened it yourself. There is nothing stopping anyone from nominating an article for addition if it was removed, or stopping someone from nominating one for removal that was just added. New people are joining Wikipedia all the time, and binding them to decisions made by a small group of editors a year before they were a part of the project seems to me like an attempt to exert ownership over the list. The list here already is extremely difficult to change from what was set years ago. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

   If people are really concerned about the American bias of this page, they should be targeting athletes or actors, not politicians. The bias toward Americans, and toward recency, is much heavier in those fields than it is in politicians.

   I consider Calhoun to be as influential as Monroe or JQA, and more influential than Jefferson Davis. I frankly don't understand why we jump to Jeff Davis as a marker of vitality...he was "president" of a fake country for only four years, and since the existence of said "country" was dependent on the success of Lee and his other generals, Lee is of greater significance than he. Furthermore, the philosophy of Davis' "country", and the fact that his "country" sprang up in 1861 and not some other time, is due in no small part to Calhoun. When the Atlantic Monthly ranked important Americans awhile back, they ranked Calhoun, Lee and JQA in the 50s; they did not rank Monroe or Jeff Davis in the Top 100.

   I really wish you'd stop beating that "we need fewer bios" drum. You've made RECENT proposals at Lv. 3, 4 and 5 to reduce the number of bios and each time consensus has been against you.

   I also find it rather hypocritical that you accuse me of belittling other editors, then go on to belittle me yourself. While I regret my phraseology in closing the proposal, I stand 110% by my decision to close. Negative understood why it did it, which is why they didn't reopen it. So why did you? _pbp 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

   Addressing different parts of your response:

   If people are really concerned about the American bias of this page, they should be targeting athletes or actors, not politicians. The bias toward Americans, and toward recency, is much heavier in those fields than it is in politicians.

   I agree we should cut athletes and actors dramatically. I also think we should cut fairly deeply in other categories. I'm allowed to vote and propose things that align with this view.

   I consider Calhoun to be as influential as Monroe or JQA, and more influential than Jefferson Davis.

   Fair, I don't consider any of them level 4 either. Subjective rankings are qualitative and difficult to pin down. The Confederate States of America  5 is level 5, and I'm not going to nominate it for level 4 either, but I think it is more "vital" then Calhoun. It's okay to have differing opinions.

   I really wish you'd stop beating that "we need fewer bios" drum. You've made RECENT proposals at Lv. 3, 4 and 5 to reduce the number of bios and each time consensus has been against you.

   Your wish is noted. The consensus has not been against me every time, we have reduced quota for athletes by 100, which is a start. Discussion is a good thing. Fundamentally I disagree with the organization of this project and will propose changes accordingly. You're free to do the same and vote on anything I propose.

   I also find it rather hypocritical that you accuse me of belittling other editors, then go on to belittle me yourself.

   This is a serious accusation. I'm sorry if my statements made you feel belittled, could you point to the part you disagree with specifically, or what phrasing you think I could have improved? I am stating that in my opinion your actions were "absurd, disruptive, and uncivil," pointing to specific examples, and attempted to point to essays/policies that describe why. The word absurd was likely not the best choice, but you used that one out first to describe my choice to open this proposal. I am trying to make sure it's clear I'm describing my opinions and interpretations of events and leave room for discussion. I'm particularly frustrated by "no edit orders" I've seen here and in other talk pages. Even in this comment, it feels like you're trying to make me stop proposing cuts related to biographies. I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm trying to call out what I believe to be uncivil behavior. Please substantiate your accusation so I can properly address it, or cross the accusation out.

   While I regret my phraseology in closing the proposal, I stand 110% by my decision to close. Negative understood why it did it, which is why they didn't reopen it. So why did you?

   I reopened this because I agreed with the proposal and didn't appreciate you unilaterally closing it before I got to vote on it. I don't like the precedent of closing proposals unilaterally because an editor finds voting on them frustrating, and wanted to address it. I think a good proposal is a good proposal, and as it is well within guidelines for bringing it up in this project, don't care if it has been talked about before. Something being brought up multiple times by multiple editors is not a strong case for keeping it in my opinion, as it has shown to be controversial over an extended period. This isn't normal article space, we're trying to fit together and sort articles out, things are going to be brought up for swap/add/removal between levels all the time. Archived votes can be discussed, but their results should not be used to decide future votes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

   Do you not understand the problem with a) voting on the same proposal over and over, or b) Voting on many similar proposals over and over within the same period, all of which fail? Do you not?

   You said, "I reopened this because I agreed with the proposal and didn't appreciate you unilaterally closing it before I got to vote on it." My God, if that's not OWNership, I don't know what is. You're literally saying that it doesn't count if it was closed (either a day ago or a year ago) if YOU didn't get to vote on it, and it must be reopened so YOU can vote on it.

   I wasn't paying attention when the single Olympics were removed from VA5; I'd have vociferously argued KEEP if I had participated. Am I saying that they should be reopened so I can vote on them? NO, it's my fault for not participating. You can't invalidate any immediate or long past discussion simply because YOU didn't participate. _pbp 04:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

   Noting that I don't believe I see any follow-up to your accusations that I belittled you. Please specify what you mean or cross that out. If you did specify in the previous text, I didn't catch it and might need it spelled out more clearly. Accusations like that are serious, and I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm frustrated with actions you took and trying to articulate that.

   Addressing the parts of your response:

   Do you not understand the problem with a) voting on the same proposal over and over, or b) Voting on many similar proposals over and over within the same period, all of which fail? Do you not?

   I believe I understand why you think there is really any problem with revisiting old proposals and topics, especially after several months/years have gone by. I don't feel bound by the decisions of small groups of people from the past, and I hope people in the future won't feel bound by things I say/do. I don't really view this like a game of winning/losing, so I'm not really concerned with revisiting past topics.

   You said, "I reopened this because I agreed with the proposal and didn't appreciate you unilaterally closing it before I got to vote on it." My God, if that's not OWNership, I don't know what is. You're literally saying that it doesn't count if it was closed (either a day ago or a year ago) if YOU didn't get to vote on it, and it must be reopened so YOU can vote on it.

   I'm not sure if this is a response to my request for you to clarify what I said that you think was belittling, but it seems more like a separate accusation. Accusations like these are serious. To clarify, I said this in response to you asking why I opened this proposal. I agreed with the proposal written by NegativeMP1, and didn't think that less then 24 hours with no votes was an appropriate amount of time for it to be open for discussion. I don't feel the need to let you or anyone close a perfectly legitimate proposal like you did, you decided to vote for the entire project and unilaterally declare it was a failed proposal against the norms I've observed and read here. I don't feel the need to let consensus or votes from years ago limit what I want to propose today, and if I was a part of a vote in the past I reserve the right to change my mind and propose the exact opposite at a later date. I believe it is the moral obligation of people who hold minority opinions to voice them clearly to protect from group think, and for people to change their minds when presented with new information. That is why I personally reopened this, because I agree with the proposal, it was closed prematurely, and I didn't get to vote on it because of a premature closure. I think this level of "ownership" extends to everyone, and when I say I didn't get to vote, I'm equally frustrated for everyone else who didn't get to. There are 4 other people on this proposal besides just me who didn't get the opportunity to vote on the proposal you closed. Opening a discussion on something discussed in the past with new members and information isn't invalidating previous discussions, shutting down future discussions completely because of past ones is invalidating those. Consensus can change. Isn't that the point of editing Wikipedia? As the project fills up and new material is created every day, we will need to make tough decisions on what to keep or drop from the list, and a lot of this list has been discussed many times in the past. We can't be bound by every past discussion that had four editors vote on it.

   I wasn't paying attention when the single Olympics were removed from VA5; I'd have vociferously argued KEEP if I had participated. Am I saying that they should be reopened so I can vote on them? NO, it's my fault for not participating. You can't invalidate any immediate or long past discussion simply because YOU didn't participate.

   Your objection is noted. We were listing Olympic games that hadn't even happened yet. Allowing a section to grow by 4 articles every 8 years like that is not sustainable, and I think we can use those slots for much more important topics. If you disagree, feel free to make a case at a time you think is appropriate, but you should include a plan that accounts for the growth of the list, and also address why we don't list other events in a similar manner, like all 120 of our articles for the World Series. That Olympic discussion was open for a while, had some discussion, and I wasn't the one who closed it. The one you closed for Calhoun was open for around 10 minutes if I'm reading the logs correctly. Do you want to set a precedent that editors can close a properly formatted proposal that is completely within all project guidelines? Comparing a discussion that ran its course with you closing one before it gets the chance seems a bit disingenuous. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

   Look at it the other way: do you want to set the precedent that nominations can immediately be reopened after being closed? Do you want to set the precedent that a topic can be nominated over and over and over for addition or removal until the desired outcome is reached? I still have gotten a satisfactory answer to the question,

   If Calhoun is removed, what's to stop me or somebody else renominating him for addition on July 4, 2026?

   . And give a little credit here: when this was reopened, I DIDN'T close it like I closed the first one, though the tools obviously exist that I could have.

   It's also worth noting that the Olympics are hardly the only VA topic that suffers from a "more of them every 8 years" problem. Consider how many G20 leaders took office less than 8 years ago. Consider how many Kennedy Center Honors or other lifetime achievement awards in entertainment will be awarded in the next 8 years. _pbp 14:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, I want to sett he precedent that if an editor improperly closes something after 10 minutes, it is okay to reopen it immediately. I'm perfectly fine with a dynamic list where discussions are encouraged and we flip flop on decisions periodically. I thought I answered your question pretty clearly, nothing is stopping someone from nominating Calhoun for addition at a later date. There is no finish line, no due date, for Wikipedia, and we aren't awarded points for successful proposals. You're arguing with the wrong person when it comes to recent G20 leaders, lifetime achievement awards, or various honors. I'd likely vote to remove most of those too if you wanted to nominate them. Assuming you aren't going to address the serious accusations you have levied against me at this point. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal Signature (Whoever came up with the signature section first, good job)

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why it's necessary. Is this a SignBot issue? Never troubled me. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

When you press "Add topic" it automatically places a signature on the post. As we usually sign our vote as nom, this auto signature results in an unnecessary floating signature that ends up in the discussion section. You can see examples on proposals if you scroll through. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not just move or remove your signature with a second edit? _pbp 13:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I was the first, but I started adding the proposal signature mark when closing articles at least. For me, while I'm sure most people wouldn't mind, I'm just wary of removing an existing signature, especially someone else's. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've never had this issue and I use the "Add topic" feature. Whenever I type the 4 tildes, it relocates my signature there and does not duplicate it. λ NegativeMP1 17:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I think either multiple paragraphs or the "label" markup we typically use for voting options throw it off. I know I've posted discussions where it detects my signature, but it also typically adds one to the bottom when I use the "Add Topic" dialog. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2025 (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.

Recount Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_78#Add_Novak_Djokovic_5,_remove_Rod_Laver_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.

---

At Level 4, I think we need to take care to get things right. User:PrimalMustelid was brave to step in as the closer on this one.

Add Novak Djokovic 6-0

User:Aurangzebra, User:Aszx5000, User:Tabu Makiadi, User:Starship.paint, User:Kevinishere15, User:Sahaib

Plus seeming support from User:Idiosincrático and User:Wolbo

Remove Rod Laver/Rafael Nadal

• Either with no preference stated User:Starship.paint, User:Kevinishere15, User:Aurangzebra
• Unclear whether agreeing to state no preference or to remove Laver: User:Sahaib
• Oppose Laver, User:Wolbo, User:TonyTheTiger
• Support Nadal User:TonyTheTiger, User:J947, User:Aszx5000 (His 2nd 9/15 vote seems to imply Oppose Laver)
• Oppose Nadal User:Idiosincrático
• Switched to support Nadal User:Tabu Makiadi
• Statements for no removal User:Idiosincrático and User:Wolbo without positioning text outdenting for formal vote.

I don't think there was actually consensus to remove Laver. If anything there was more support to remove Nadal. I think Laver should be restored. I am not comfortable saying that there was consensus to remove Laver.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The removal of Rod Laver is based on reading the nomination based on adding one article and removing the other since the only other option is a counterproposal of removing a separate person. You can renominate Laver in a new section if you wish, but the addition of Djokovic remains. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:PrimalMustelid, Can you explain your determination of consensus for removal of Laver vs. removal of Nadal. What count did you come to given the discussants statements. Laver should not have the burden of readmission, IMO. Any determination between 6-0 and 8-0 for adding Djokovic is clear and reasonable. However, based on this nomination the removal decision needs some clarification. I just don't see did you count User:Starship.paint, User:Kevinishere15, User:Aurangzebra as supporting Laver's removal?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to hear again from what other users who participated have to say about the removal first before I determine whether to reverse the removal or not, but next time, users have to state their positions on both the addition and removal instead of appearing to support both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a preference. Sahaib (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:PrimalMustelid, I have not noticed you closing a lot of discussions here. The culture at VA is different than a lot of other places on WP. Here we do essentially count votes. E.g., a lot of places on WP, if the vote is 8-5 a closer can close it for, against or no consensus. (against might be unusual, but votes without explanations are not as common elsewhere as they are here where they count fully) Here at Level 1-4 it passes, Level 5 it fails. Also weak support seems to have a different meaning here. Elsewhere, you might not give a weak support and a support equal weight in final tally. Here weak support sort of means "don't support per me. I am voting, but I don't mean to sway anyone else so much. Please think about it yourself." As a closer, your task is simply to count the votes here. In the case of a swap the add and remove are separate considerations. The closer is suppose to present a closing total and his determination is formulaic once that is done. That is the WP:VA closing culture. It is up to you to state how many people you feel supported and opposed each remove. In this case with a majority having indifference, it may prevent a consensus to close either. Your decision to reverse the removal should be based on how you count the discussion at the time of the close. Sahib has kindly clarified whether he was agreeing with the nominator to remove Laver or the later discussants who were indifferent on which removal bringing the total to 4 indifferent removal votes. Your close is suppose to report totals in support and in opposition of each removal. Basically, either present totals or your close is against customary procedure here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:PrimalMustelid, Thank for all of the hard work on Jan 19. I undid the level 5 archive that was suppose to not happen before February. Everything else looks real good. Every single discussion other than the messy one above seems to have solid clarity for closure (including Level 4 where timed out discussions often go uncapped). I have a history of inspecting the archives to make sure discussions came to a proper end and this one just does not reflect consensus. In addition there is no summary in the cap that explains the rationale for each nominated article as is customary throughout the archives. I'm debating about reopening it or undoing the Laver close. We always close with an explanation that clarifies why the consensus was interpreted to lead to the closure as it was enacted. Something has to be done here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help, and I might see what I can to close level 5 proposals that have already reached consensuses within certain time frames soon enough. I make sure that the closures follow expected procedures of the respective levels (1-4 vs. 5) and will continue to do so as I move along. If we have to rehandle the Laver removal, one solution can be to open a new thread regarding whether Laver should remain removed, be reinstated without swaps, or be added in with another player removal. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Again, I don't know how much experience you have closing discussions. I do see that you added the closer script on Jan 19 and then did a lot of closing. In general the way things work, is you close a discussion. Then, days later it gets archived. I don't know if the reason for the delay is for review. However, it has also been customary for corrective talks to happen regarding closed discussions before archiving happens. However, in this case you closed the discusion and then archived it less than an hour later. Often a corrective discussion happens before an archive happens. I have in the past reopened archives. The objective is to pursue the action based on the consensus in the discussion. Let's look at other discussions involving a set of demotions/promotions where discussants expressed interest in alternate set of actions. In the same archive see model closes of Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_78#Add_Nirvana_(band)_4_and_Sex_Pistols_5_(Potential_swap_with_The_Velvet_Underground_5, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_78#Add_Run-DMC_4_and_Kanye_West_5_(potential_swap_with_Joan_Baez_5_and_Dolly_Parton_4/Buddy_Holly_4), Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_78#Swap_Minas_Gerais_4_with_São_Paulo_(state)_4, and Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_78#Swap_British_Columbia_5_with_Ohio_5. When people start splitting the set, the closure must assess each action separately like these. Even this one Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_78#African_capitals:_swap_Gaborone_4_and_Windhoek_4_out_for_Bangui_4_and_Nouakchott_4 that looks like it got closed incorrectly by User:Makkool attempted to assess the consensus of each separate action. However, you did not properly close the discussion because you did not separate your closure analysis once the discussants separated their consideration of the actions. When the issue is noticed so recently that it has not been archived, we just correct it. In this case, you archived it so quickly that you did not allow for timely correction. Above I presented two options: 1. reopen the discussion to allow further discussion or an alternate closing analysis/decision set 2, correct the closure. You are offering a third alternative which is 3. Do not correct the closure with the incorrect closure as status quo. Since I noticed the incorrect closure, I think we should correct it and then pursue further action from the corrected status quo. I believe that if a closure is noticed to be incorrect quickly enough, that is the proper action.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• I forgot level 4 requires 5 support votes for consensus so the African capital swap is correct too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Here are the counts I see:

No preference on removal between Nadal and Laver User:Starship.paint, User:Kevinishere15, User:Aurangzebra, User:Sahaib Remove Laver: 2 Oppose (User:Wolbo, User:TonyTheTiger) Remove Nadal: 4 Support (User:TonyTheTiger, User:J947, User:Aszx5000, User:Tabu Makiadi) 1 Oppose User:Idiosincrático No Removal: Would support User:Idiosincrático and User:Wolbo (outdenting not clear regarding intent of statement)

I am going to add this to the closure, readd Laver, marked without prejudice for immediate reconsideration.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added to the explanation and restored Laver.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this is the correct decision. The discussion showed a clear and explicit support for adding Djokovic but only one person showed explicit support to remove Laver (User:Starship.paint) while three explicitly supported Laver to remain. As a comment about the process, if someone, by their own admission, doesn't 'know a whole lot about tennis' it is probably unwise to propose the removal of any specific player without having the knowledge to make a convincing argument for that removal. Good to see Laver restored as I'm sure most tennis aficionados would not take this list at all seriously without him in it.--Wolbo (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the tone of this message especially when considering the fact that no one can be an expert in every subject matter that the Vital Articles project covers. As an extension of your logic, no one should be able to propose or vote on things outside of their subject matter expertise. That would grind this project to a halt. It is custom on VA4 (up until recently, I guess) to propose swap proposals to balance quotas. As noted in my proposal, I researched every current VA4 tennis player and Laver was the weakest and I provided an explanation for why I thought that was the case while also noting that I didn't feel too strongly about it and only proposed it if people demanded a swap. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Aurangzebra the nomination was perfectly reasonable. We all find our nominations to on the wrong side of consensus sometimes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I was referring to Wolbo's comment about how the proposal wasn't well thought out simply because I mentioned I don't follow tennis as much (despite clearly knowing enough about tennis to recognize that Djokovic was a notable omission), not to anything you said. I appreciate you cleaning up the results of the proposal! Aurangzebra (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I was fairly certain that was the case. I was merely stating that I don't agree that the proposal was not well thought out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 22 February 2025 (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 Ligament  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.

---

Given our listings for Bone  3, Cartilage  4 and Tendon  4, I think Ligament  4 deserves promotion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, Tendon  4 makes it a simple matter of precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2025 (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 Nightclub  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.

---

A cultural venue that's a popular place for entertainment around the world. Many of the world's subcultures developed in clubs.

Support

1. As nominator. To arts ----> Culture venues Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Disc jockey is only at level 5. Sahaib (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't think I'm opposed to the idea. But I added pub years ago, which was later removed through voting, which I opposed. The argument in part was it was believed to be redundant to bar. I'm not sure having bar and nightclub but not pub would feel right to me.  Carlwev  06:16, 15 January 2025 (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 History of the telephone

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 concept relating to the telephone and the smartphone.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:20, 30 December 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 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

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 Western Asia section doesn't list any leaders after 2004. More info: Erdoğan is the country's first directly elected president and the second longest serving prime minister. Under his tenure, the country has seen an economic crisis, involvement in Syria and Libya, etc. He won another five year term in the 2023 Turkish presidential election.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. The noms rationale could be more detailed,(rationale was updated since this comment) but this is someone that, the more I think about it, is definitely worthy of this level. He is quite possibly the most influential leader of modern Turkey since Ataturk, and I think the fourth paragraph of his lead section demonstrates why I believe so fairly well. Additionally, recentism appears to not be a concern in cases like this as we list many 21st century leaders at this level, granted they're mostly U.S. ones. Obviously, I'm not some Turkish history expert, so I could definitely be wrong about his true impact (and if I am, I'd like to be educated). But from how I see it, there is no reason why Erdoğan shouldn't be here. λ NegativeMP1 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, definitely an important leader in relation to European and Middle Eastern geopolitics. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Love or hate him, he's definitely the most dynamic leader Turkiye has seen since Ataturk, and the country has become a great power again under his watch. Not going to get into my personal issues with the guy. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. He has major impact on both his country and in international relations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

@NegativeMP1: I agree, I have added more info. Sahaib (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (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 Narendra Modi

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

---

Surprised he is not listed. India is the most populated country, 4x the population of the United States so is actually quite underrepresented on this list.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. The previous proposal to add him failed, but I think he's gained enough stature after the 2024 Indian general election. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. An important leader in terms of India both domestically and geopolitically. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. I was debating whether we know whether he's important enough to include or should wait, but Indian's population size shows his impact on a huge number of people, and he's had a long term as PM. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I'm not sure but might be recency bias. I understand India is underrepresented, by why does Modi stand out as opposed to other worthy Indian leaders? Should we wait a few years before including him to see. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: I'm not an expert but here is a paragraph from the lead "Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression. As prime minister, he has received consistently high approval ratings. Modi has been described as engineering a political realignment towards right-wing politics. He remains a controversial figure domestically and internationally, over his Hindu nationalist beliefs and handling of the Gujarat riots, which have been cited as evidence of a majoritarian and exclusionary social agenda." Sahaib (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2025 (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 Information Science

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.

---

From the lede, "Information science is an academic field which is primarily concerned with analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval, movement, dissemination, and protection of information." A quick Google Scholar search for "Information Science" here reveals multiple highly cited publication. Information science is taught at multiple schools in the United States, and has several subdisciplines such as Geographic Information Science. As technology progresses and we generate more data then ever before, I think this discipline is more important then level 5.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, besides your arguments, it also subsumes Library and information science  5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 6 January 2025 (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 some geographers

Add Bernhardus Varenius  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.

---

Varenius wrote the Geographia Generalis  5 which is seen as the dividing line between classical and contemporary geography.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. His seminal text Geographia Generalis has 0 interwikis and was an article that you created earlier this year. Though this could just be evidence of the gaps Wikipedia has when it comes to geography, I find it hard to believe that the most important work of a VA4 contender did not have an article until this year. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I provided multiple peer-reviewed publications when I created the article. There are extreme gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of geography, something I'm working to try and fix. Not a lot of editors working on 1650 texts, biographies of geographers, or concepts in the discipline. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2. He is not well known compared to the other social scientists listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

   He wrote the book that modern American, English, and Russian geography trace their origins to. Isaac Newton edited and published the later editions of it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Gerardus Mercator  5

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

---

The Mercator projection  4 is named after him. This projection has seen widespread use even centuries after Mercator's death. Mercator is likely the most famous cartographer of all time.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Out of all these, this is my only weak oppose. I don't think any geographers deserve a spot on VA4 yet but if we absolutely had to choose one, it would likely be him. However, if you compare his accomplishments and his societal and cultural impact to the other people we list at VA4, he does not compare. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Proposing him instead of Piri Reis  5 or Muhammad al-Idrisi  5 is Western-centric in my opinion. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support adding all three. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Waldo R. Tobler  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.

---

Waldo Tobler is regarded by many as the most influential geographer of the 20th century. Some pages based on his work include Tobler's first law of geography, Tobler's second law of geography, Tobler hyperelliptical projection, and Tobler's hiking function. Among other things, he wrote the first peer-reviewed publication suggesting the use of computers to make maps. He would represent the pinnacle of the field and is essential to the coverage of several articles.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem comparable to the other entries we list on VA4. I'm sure he was influential to modern geography but none of the articles you've linked seem to prove how he transcends beyond VA5. I know you are a geographer and I appreciate your passion for making sure geography is well-represented on VA but I think it is also important to zoom out a little bit and compare these entries to the ones we list (and the ones we don't list) to compare. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   This can be said about almost all of our athletes. They literally don't matter in the grand scheme of things outside their sport. I can point to multiple publications discussing Tobler's impact on Geography  2. His publications have shaped the discipline and how research is done. Me being a geographer just means I'm aware of this, I'm sure we have countless highly influential scientists who are not included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Fair point and I think our fundamental disagreement is in what we consider vital. As I've mentioned on that other football thread, I do think athletes are important in the grand scheme of things and you don't. I think 'entertainment' fields have just as much of an impact on society as more academic fields do. More people can chime in here and I will abide by the results of the vote but this is just my opinion. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Sports has an impact on society, however the individual athletes rarely do. Most athletes don't even impact how their sport is played, much less society as a whole. Influential academics quantifiably impact their field, and the field can have a quantifiable impact on society. Tobler published the first paper on Computer cartography  5, and his research has wide reaching implications on things like using your smart phone to find a place. On Google Scholar, if you search Tobler First Law you'll get several highly cited research papers using the term in their title. I base what I consider vital on the criteria on Wikipedia:Vital articles, what do you base yours on? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Not particularly comfortable with a page with single-digit interwikis being at VA4 _pbp 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Since when are Wikilinks a criteria for vital articles? I keep seeing people using it, but it isn't listed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   If you want to instead use pageviews, 379 past 30 days is underwhelming also _pbp 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Sure! Criteria 2 is "Essential to Wikipedia's other articles," so lets look at the page views for articles associated with Tobler between December 12th 2024 and January 11th 2024 here. Tobler's first law of geography (1,444 views) Tobler's second law of geography (333 views), Tobler hyperelliptical projection (782 views), Tobler's hiking function (368 views), and Waldo Tobler bibliography (19 views). That is 2,946 views on articles directly related to his work during the time period, 3,147 if you count his main page. Tobler had a material impact on his field, and on the course of humanity, there are plenty of citations for this I can provide. He's one of the 349 entries in Springer Natures Encyclopedia of Mathematical Geosciences, for example. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   That is still lower than almost every other biography at VA4. To be listed at VA4, a biography's importance and influence must transcend their disclipline and extend to wider society to a greater extent. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

   He published the first peer-reviewed paper on Computer cartography  5, and made major contributions to the discipline. Look at his name on Google Scholar and check the citation counts on his publications. If you've ever used a smart phone to navigate, or any map made in the past 30 years, the technology that made that happen has it's origins with his work. If you look at the page for American Association of Geographers, one of the major awards is the "Geographic Information Science and Systems Specialty Group Tobler Lecture Award." The Austrian Academy of Sciences has two awards named after Tobler. Within the discipline, Tobler hasn't just won awards in geography, they are named after him at the highest level in multiple countries. When he died, at least seven peer reviewed journals published memorial articles or issues about him, including one titled Waldo Tobler: Remembering a genius. To quote that publication: "With most inventors, it is possible to say that if they had not done it someone else would have stepped in shortly afterwards and filled their boots, or even that someone else was actually inventing the same things at the very same time because it was actually the next obvious step to take. You cannot say that about Tobler. There was no one else at the same time doing anything at all similar and many of his ideas remain to this day to still be taken forward because they are still too innovative for our times. Waldo operated as if he had come from the future. His ideas about the (imaginary still to be visualized economic) winds that move migrants around the USA and the transformation of time to morph it into space have not yet been taken very far forwards. In 1971 he was one of the first, and possibly still the only, human geographer to have a paper published in Nature on archaeology (Tobler and Wineburg, Citation 1971)." He has a lot of literature on him. Wikipedia's metrics don't really capture the impact many academics have on the world. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

   You can reformulate the laws of physics, but if you are a 20th-century American whose article receives 400 pageviews a month then you do not warrant a place at VA4. There are very few modern academics on this list, and those who are there receive an order of magnitude higher pageviews than Tobler. This is because it is generally viewed as best to wait to establish a figure's influence over a disclipline – for what's in vogue in academia may change. I would not be surprised if Tobler were to garner fame over the next 50 years, and I would not be surprised if he did not and if a Roger Tomlinson became well-known instead. Any perusal of the People section will inform you that to wait is an overarching philosophy of VA4. Moreover – if you wish to change this reality, and inject some modernity into the People section, Tobler would not be near the first addition. I am in favour of listing a handful of geographers at this level, but I can only assume that the reason you are proposing Tobler and not the much more well-known David Harvey, Halford Mackinder, or Sven Hedin is because he is key in your specific, emerging branch of geography and they are prominent in others. Equally, it is impossible to support the addition of Tobler when Geographic information system  5 isn't even listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

   I have a list of geographers to try and add here over time, and have several related topics open right now at level 5. Harvey is on my list, but I am hoping to get other stuff added first. Harvey studies Marxist geography, Critical geography  5, and Urban geography, none of which are at level 5 yet. I currently have a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History_and_geography to add two of those three, as well as Cultural geography  5 and Transport geography. I'm trying to round out the discipline, the geographers we have on the list are mostly physical geographers, not human or technical. We have a lot of technical and physical concepts, but are missing human ones, which I've been working to add before focusing on key individuals. That said, I do have proposals for Carl O. Sauer and Yi-Fu Tuan on level 5 right now, both of whom are huge names in the history of the discipline. Sauer is extremely important to understanding early 20th century American geography. This batch is mostly focused on technical geographers and cartographers, I'd like to make more in the future for human geographers, but need to get them added to level 5 first. I'd welcome help nominating them, I'd support ALL of the ones you've mentioned.

   My "specific, emerging branch of geography" is at least several centuries old, and the current incarnation of it is from the 1950s. I want to get Tobler added because he has had a tremendous impact on the discipline as a whole. He is the most influential of Garrison's batch of grad students that shaped the quantitative revolution. I don't appreciate your assumption, I've been working to improve the state of geography on Wikipedia overall, which has included the parts I don't work on personally. If a person with multiple awards named after them in the disciplines national organizations, who has multiple peer reviewed publications discussing how they revolutionized the discipline isn't level 4, who is included in multiple cartography encyclopedia's, then I struggle to think any individual belongs at level 4 at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

3. He is not well known compared to the other social scientists listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Mei-Po Kwan  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.

---

Mei-Po Kwan is among the most influential geographers currently living. For those who care about such measures, her Impact factor on Google Scholar is enormous, with a h-index of 95 and a i10-index of 335 as of me writing this. Different sites will give different values, but all will show she has a large impact within geography. Pages based on her work include Uncertain geographic context problem and the neighborhood effect averaging problem. The page is notable and essential to the coverage of several articles. Her inclusion also might help reduce western bias, although she is a professor at U.S. universities.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Same reasoning as above but even stronger. Only 2 interwikis and nothing in her article indicates research of similar importance to the other social scientists we list at VA5. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Same argument as Tobler. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Per Aurangzebra. Seems more Lv 5, maybe not even that. _pbp 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. She is not well known compared to the other social scientists listed. David Harvey  5 would appear to be a much more sensible add, if listing a modern geographer were required. (Harvey's h-index and i10-index are both higher, incidentally.) J947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:44, 12 January 2025 (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.

Jacques louis david

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

---

i am of the opinion that Jacques louis david be upgraded to level three, does anyone else agree or should i not bother putting it forward capstar (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Jacques-Louis David  4

Support

1. capstar (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: Level 4 seems the right level. Level 3 would make him among the most significant artists in world history and that's a bit much _pbp 18:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Of our level 3 artists, all but one are western. If you look at page views for the artists at level 3 over the past year and compare them with Jacques louis david, he consistently is less viewed then all of them, with one outlier date where he outperformed one or two of them. I think we need fewer individuals at level 3 as is, and in our artists I think we ultimately need to swap in some non-western options or scrap them at level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do agree about introducing non western artists, and certainly slimming down how many renaissance artists are featured capstar (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2025 (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 Bugs Bunny  5 with Donald Duck  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.

---

Donald Duck  4 and Mickey Mouse  4 are both level 4, and both Disney Characters. If you look at the views for the three over the past 10 years, you see that Mickey is much higher then the other two, but that Bugs has consistently slightly more pageviews then Donald. Bugs is a Warner Bros. Cartoons product, and likely the most recognizable Loony Toon character. Mickey Mouse can properly represent Disney cartoons at level 4, and adding Bugs gives the Loony Toons some level 4 representation.

Support Swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Add Bugs Bunny without Swap

1. Failing Swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Donald Duck whether or not Bugs is added to level 4. Donald Duck is a very important part of cinema because of his distinguishable personality that led to him literally overshadowing Mickey for decades and having historically also been popular in both Latin America and Europe. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per PrimalMustelid. λ NegativeMP1 04:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Donald Duck is more popular than Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Sahaib (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Looney Tunes  4 is already at this level; Donald Duck shouldn't be removed as long as Carl Barks  5 remains on mere level 5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal. Donald has had more of an impact in comic strips, comic books, and print media. We have an article on the non-fiction book How to Read Donald Duck (1971) which argues about Donald's role in American cultural imperialism. Where is the relevant article on Bugs? Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Neutral

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The reason Donald Duck is a Level 4 and not a Level 5 character is that HE, not Mickey, has appeared in the most Disney cartoons and products. _pbp 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair, I think that Mickey is still the face of Disney world wide. Despite that, I think Bugs should still be added. I added an option for that as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:41, 18 January 2025 (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 −1  5 and 1  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.

---

Mathematics is over quota at level 5, and we're starting to make tough decisions for cuts. At level 5, I just proposed removing several of the individual numbers we list, but that isn't all of them as several are at level 3 and 4. This proposal is to move −1  5 and 1  4 to level 5 as part of this discussion. I think that there are many more concepts that need to be included in mathematics besides just listing out numbers.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 1, 0, and -1 are numbers with special properties and importance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Mixed

1. Support -1, oppose 1. I think 1 is so fundamentally important that it belongs at level 4. However, I don't think we need both -1 and Negative number  4 at VA4, and the latter is more important. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support -1, oppose 1 per above. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support -1, oppose 1. I'm quite happy with 0 and 1 being the only integers at level 4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

The (move to level 5) nomination title was a bit confusing. This is just a normal remove nomination.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:31, 2 February 2025 (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.

Move Residencies & Rooms to 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.

---

One more move proposal to close out a discussion elsewhere. We were recently talking about some of the entries in Infrastructure in Tech, and we realized a couple categories really aren't defined by technical aspects much. Instead, it seems the argument for their vitality is mainly that they're very common or well-known to most people.

Specifically, the Residential and housing units and Rooms and spaces groups, which include articles like House  4, Bedroom  4, Palace  4, and Hotel  4. Maybe the two closest to an exception are Kitchen  4 and Bathroom  4, but we already list Home appliance  4 and Plumbing  4 in their own right.

One other argument for the move is that at Levels 3 and above, the main topic Home  2 is actually listed under Everyday Life. At some point, it just got moved to Tech here and at Lv5. Since this is a bulk move, I'll go ahead & start a tally; if you mostly support the move but have an exception in mind, feel free to list that below.

Support (most)

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose (most)

Exceptions

Discuss

Proposal signature

Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2025 (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 both Homeopathy  5 AND Chiropractic  5 with Quackery  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 don't see a particular reason to include homeopathy and chiropractic on the VA 4 list, there are many medicines (such as Osteopathy  5), and these two have a heavy western bias. By moving Quackery  4 up and these two down, we make some room at level 4, remove a bit of western bias, and de-emphasize some pseudoscientific health practices.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support only remove Homeopathy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Let's get this over the finish line. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose move Quackery.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of Chiropractic. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

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.

Move TV series from Society to Arts

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

---

As a previous discussion pointed out, TV series are listed in the Mass media section of the Society subpage but they would fit better on the Arts subpage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Although there are differences, they are almost the same as movies. Both made the same, scripts written, produced, directed, acted, filmed. Some people interchange and do both movies and TV as they are the same skills, not the same as athletes or musicians taking up acting. Some franchises cover both movies and TV without much change, like Star Trek, Star Wars, X files, Simpsons many Disney characters and many more. Small issue being some TV shows are not fiction. But Documentary movies do exist, although rarer. And non fiction TV shows would still need some artistic input. Also, all literature is listed in arts, including non fiction like encyclopedias, dictionaries etc. So I do not see an issue with that.  Carlwev  14:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I also want to ratify this move; it makes perfect sense. Since it's a big one though, just take it slowly & carefully if we decide to do it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Support moving Makkool (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Zar2gar1: Why do we have to do it slowly? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, there's no hard rule that it has to be done slowly, but transcription errors happen or people occasionally want to double-check things. Since this would implicitly reorganize the TV shows at Level 5 too, you're talking about moving ~250 articles between pages. You can probably just cut-and-paste without changes since they appear to be in one place, but even then, there's no guarantee something won't go wrong. It's ultimately the judgment call of whoever does the move. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Which other television-related entries should be moved? I suggest moving the sections "Genres" and "Awards" (in addition to "Television series") but not move the section "Television networks and channels" and "Organizations". Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Of the entries listed directly under the "Television" section, I would like to move Documentary film, Serial (radio and television), Episode, Television pilot and probably Television show. What do you think, @Carlwev:, @Zar2gar1:, @Makkool:? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! And maybe TV networks and organizations could be moved to Companies/Media companies in Society? Or to Media and communication in Technology under Broadcasting  3. Makkool (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm counting 4 votes in favor of moving TV shows, or 6 including NegativeMP1 and QuicoleJR who support reallocating the quota accordingly in another discussion. @NegativeMP1: @QuicoleJR: Should I count your votes here? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought it already happened. Write me down as a supporter. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I support this as well. λ NegativeMP1 23:07, 20 March 2025 (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 New York City Subway with (New York City Transit Authority or Metropolitan Transportation Authority)

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

---

I am aware that the proposed articles for addition are not level 5. I have nominated both articles to level 5 twice, but unfortunately, the discussion has stalled with no comments coming in. Because of this, I am going to ignore all rules and nominate those two articles as swaps to New York City Subway. I think listing the broader agency the runs the subway system would be more inclusive of the public transport systems that runs in the city.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Eh, I think the subway is what is iconic. People globally know the subway. It is omnipresent in films and TV. It is the component of the MTA that is the oldest, the longest, and the most-used. The Long Island Railroad is not vital. The Metro-North is not vital. The buses aren't vital. The subway is what gives the MTA its vitality, not the other way around. Aurangzebra (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose.  Carlwev  17:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3. I also oppose this. The MTA/NYCTA just don't have the same renown that the subway does. As mentioned by Carlwev below, it's kinda like having TfL replace London Underground as the vital article representing London's rapid transit system; only the Underground is actually well known, despite the fact that it's operated by TfL. Besides, it's not like the MTA is synonymous with the subway; the subway has a much longer history that predates the MTA, and the MTA is only one aspect of the subway. The same goes for the NYCTA. Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I get that it's in charge, and also covers buses that the subway does not. But this would be akin to swapping London Underground with Transport for London or Channel Tunnel with Eurostar or Getlink; or pushed to the extreme, swapping London for Greater London Authority. Also companies/organizations come and go. Another body could take over and it would still be the New York Subway. The subway system has existed for 50 years longer than the authority. It is the subway that people are interested in and is vital, not the body that runs it.  Carlwev  17:32, 21 February 2025 (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 Benny Goodman  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.

---

Before I say anything else with this nomination, I want to make it clear that, if I happen to be missing something with this proposal, I am willing to take the feedback and withdraw if my assessments of this man's importance are proven wrong. With that being said, after doing a fair amount of reading through his article and the ones of other musicians at this level, I simply think that Goodman is a better fit for level-5, and I will attempt to explain why in-detail.

First of all, let's assess his article a little bit, and hold him up to the standards of other jazz musicians we currently list at this level. This includes people like Miles Davis  4, and more broadly Frank Sinatra  4. And now let's take their contributions: Miles Davis is "considered one of the most innovative, influential, and respected figures in the history of music", and created one of the few specific V4 musical works, Kind of Blue  4, while Frank Sinatra is among one of the most popular musicians ever with global appeal, with some considering him the most important singer of the 20th century. Clearly, these two belong at this level, regardless of your definition of what makes an artist worthy of this level. And most of the other jazz musicians at this level (we list 11~ total) seem to be worthy of being here as well at first glance.

Now let's see what Goodman brings to the table to be worthy of V4. His article claims that he was the "King of Swing" (a title that is widely disputed by several other artists, not as clear cut of a title as "King of Pop"), and that one of his concerts was exceptionally important to the history of jazz. His band (which doesn't even have an article itself) also seemed to have been slightly influential in helping start the careers of jazz musicians. But beyond that, he does not seem to have any significant contributions to the jazz genre or the music industry at large, the latter of which is something that should come to be expected from a music artist that is allegedly one of the 1,000 most important people to ever live (with some exceptions like on the grounds of representation), and one of the 10,000 most important topics of all time. His article doesn't even have a legacy or impact section, and his awards section is fairly scarce (I would expect a V4 musician to receive more posthumous praise and awards). And if you want to play the pageviews or interwikis game, Goodman has the fewest out of all other jazz musicians at this level (57 is still a good number though).

The only exception I could maybe think of would be if we lacked jazz representation at this level, but with pretty much all of the greats being listed at this level (amounting to 8 other jazz musicians + more broadly the aforementioned Sinatra + Louis Armstrong  3 at V3), that argument becomes a hard sell. I also think it's a hard sell to say that he's on a similar level as people like Davis and Sinatra. TL;DR: regardless of what your assessment of artists being worthy of V4 may be, I do not believe that Goodman makes the cut. He lacks a substantial enough legacy on the likes of other jazz figures at this level, and seems to have most of his influence sourced from a singular concert. This isn't to say that Goodman isn't important, he definitely is, but when comparing him to other artists, particularly jazz ones, at this level, I simply think that Goodman is a better fit for V5. However, I'm willing to admit that I could be missing something here and maybe his article is just really bad, so if I am missing something, I'm willing to discuss it. λ NegativeMP1 04:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 04:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Didn't have the time period popularity of unlisted Glenn Miller or Paul Whiteman and doesn't have the enduring critical and in cultural Jazz respect of John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans and Ornette Coleman. (all of whom are not listed). Fletcher Henderson and Count Basie are also increasingly getting recognised as just as much "king of swings" as Goodman. He hasn't had widespread enduring pop culture importance today, modern popular music musicians should have that to be listed. It's not a problem for Davis or Sinatra like the nom says and we shouldn't be obligated to 10 jazz artists or any musicians who don't have that global pop culture impact. His only credit is that one concert and we don't list many other "first" genre musicians like Jimmie Rodgers, W. C. Handy, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, or Ramones/Sex Pistols. Is Benny Goodman as vital to American music as producers such as Phil Spector or Quincy Jones? Is he as long lasting as Kassia or Barbad or Tansen in unique music culture? Are borderline Jazz musicians more vital than classical musicians who represent neglected intruments like Jean-Pierre Rampal, Andrés Segovia or Jascha Heifetz? Is the 10th most borderline Jazz musician worth listing in favour of BigBang (South Korean band), Mohammed Rafi, Kishore Kumar, Fairuz, Vicente Fernández, Elza Soares and Anita Mui? All major figures in major music industries (although like Jazz, more regional in nature). Benny Goodman is more fitting to level 5, especially if it gets more strict. Level 4 popular/recent musicians should be globally big names, still relevant today. Not just one concert footnotes. Herod the Great types are not listed here, how can Goodman compare? GuzzyG (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Not V4 and I don't think it's a very close call. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom. If we want to have a 10th jazz musician, it should be John Coltrane  5 who was the definitive jazz king post-1960. Two of the greatest jazz albums of all time, A Love Supreme  5 and Giant Steps (not currently a VA5 album but really should be). Aurangzebra (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2025 (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.